Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

Departmental Staff

Mr. Onslow: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what increase or decrease in staff there was in the Department under his control in the period 16th October 1964 to 15th October 1965; and what increase or decrease he anticipates in the period up to 15th April 1966.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Anthony Crosland): The answer to the first part of the question is an increase of 373, including 200 former staff of D.S.I.R. whose functions were transferred to my Department on 1st April, 1965. I shall shortly be discussing staffing for the year 1966–67 with the Treasury in accordance with normal procedure.

Mr. Onslow: Will the Minister tell the House why the increase of the last six months has been 30 more than he forecast in April this year?

Mr. Crosland: I think that the exact figure is 27 more, which seems to me to be miraculously close to the forecast which I made. The major reason why our staff has increased by this comparatively small amount, apart from D.S.I.R., is the fact that a number of fresh responsibilities have been put on the Department in the last year or so.

Immigrant Children

Mr. Freeson: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what definition his Department gives to the term, Immigrant Child, used in his Circular 7/65 on the Education of Immigrants.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Denis Howell): The term "immigrant child" in Circular 7/65 was intended to cover children who, because of differences in their cultural and social background and, sometimes, their inadequate knowledge of English, need special attention in school.

Mr. Freeson: Will my hon. Friend therefore undertake an inquiry in his Department as to why an answer was given to people inquiring from my area, including myself, by a civil servant in the Ministry that a child born of immigrant parents within ten years of their coming to this country was to be defined as an immigrant child?

Mr. Howell: I will certainly look into any answer given to my hon. Friend. I am staggered that if he were seeking information from my Department he did not communicate with Ministers.

Mr. Freeson: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science upon what statistical or other evidence based on social and educational studies he concludes that there is a need for organised dispersal of immigrant children by local education authorities, as would be required by the implementation of his Circular 7/65.

Mr. Denis Howell: The Secretary of State is in constant touch with the local education authorities who are carrying the main responsibility for the education of immigrant children. Detailed information and advice about the educational and social considerations which apply is also available to him from H.M. Inspectorate of schools. He has concluded from a close study of this information, and on the professional advice of those most closely associated with this problem, that the difficulties in both schools and classes are manageable where the number of immigrants is generally not in excess of 30 per cent. of the total number of children. Practical experience in the schools shows that when this figure is exceeded the proportion of immigrant children tends to increase rapidly and such a situation militates against a policy of integration which is the main aim of the Government.

Mr. Freeson: Is my hon. Friend aware that in fact this is not the general experience in all areas—and I choose my words carefully—where there are immigrants settling in this country, while it may be true in certain specified areas. Are we to take it from my hon. Friend's reply that there have been no properly designed social surveys and studies made as a basis for this circular?

Mr. Howell: My hon. Friend is quite wrong to say that. There is the overwhelming evidence of the professional people involved—and I know this from my own practical experience of sending my own children to such a school. These problems are manageable up to a certain percentage, after which a considerable difficulty arises. It is interesting to note that the London headmasters have just produced a report and that the teachers of Birmingham are saying exactly the same thing. Both those authorities are not pursuing the Government's policy. The teachers, professionally, on educational grounds and not on any political or racialist grounds, are saying from practical experience that the Government are right in this matter. I believe that we should take note of what people are saying who are in the trade dealing with the problem.

Mr. Speaker: That answer was too long.

Mr. Hornby: Is the Joint Under-Secretary aware that many experts, particularly in the United States, consider that his figure of 30 per cent. is unduly high? Would he not be well advised to look at the evidence on this figure again to ensure that he avoids the dangers which he is trying to avoid?

Mr. Howell: I believe that there is some evidence on which to say that some people believe that the figure is too high. However, others think that it is too low. Therefore, I think that we are right in thinking that it is about correct.

Programmed Teaching Machines

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science which local education authorities have introduced programmed teaching machines into schools and other educational institutions; and to what extent.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Edward Redhead): There are at least 73 local education authorities in England and Wales which are making use of programmed learning in varying degrees, and the number is steadily growing.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is it no longer true, despite the shortage of teachers, that the education authorities and the teaching profession are showing less interest in these machines than are the Armed Forces and industry?

Mr. Redhead: I do not think that one should draw that conclusion from any Answer. Teaching machines provide only one means of presenting programmed learning. There are other methods, and research has not gone far enough to establish the superiority of machines.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science to what extent independent and direct grant schools are making use of programmed teaching machines.

Mr. Redhead: I regret that this information is not available.

National Youth Orchestra (Grant)

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether, in order to encourage the development of music in schools, he will give a grant to maintain the National Youth Orchestra.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Miss Jennie Lee): I understand the Executive Committee of the council of the orchestra is to meet next month and I shall be glad to consider any suggestions which may then be put to me.

Dame Irene Ward: I thank the Joint Under-Secretary for that helpful reply. Will she give an undertaking that after there has been such a meeting the whole position of the National Youth Orchestra, with all the support that it receives from various sources, will be made known to the public so that we may know how much support the Government are giving to this very useful and important movement?

Miss Lee: I assure the hon. Lady that I share her admiration for this orchestra. It is very distinguished and I am deeply concerned about it, but because I am concerned I do not want to say any more just now.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: While sharing the Minister's admiration for this orchestra, will she do everything she can to encourage local authorities to see what they can do to keep school orchestras of this kind together after children have left school?

Miss Lee: Certainly. Indeed, I am working on a survey covering the whole sphere of what we are doing in drama and music, relating to those of school age and school leavers.

Teacher Training (Widowed Mothers)

Mrs. Shirley Williams: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will allow widowed mothers to receive their pension without deduction in the case of those undergoing teacher training.

Mr. Redhead: I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer given to her on 29th July by my right hon. Friend when he announced alternative arrangements for the assessment of grants to widows training as teachers. Under these arrangement a widow may, if it is more favourable, relinquish her claim to dependants' grants in respect of her children and claim instead an allowance against income of £300 for the first child and £100 for each subsequent child. This would leave her pension untouched.

Mrs. Williams: While thanking my hon. Friend for that Answer, may I say that this was one of the difficulties which had arisen—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must not say. She must ask.

Mrs. Williams: May I ask my hon. Friend whether he is aware that the removal of the widows' earnings bar created an anomaly in this sphere, and may I thank him for the changes which have been made?

Education Committees (Future Educational Structure)

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give an assurance that, on receipt of local education committees' plans on their future educational structure, no attempt will be made by his Department to make those committees reconsider their plans.

Mr. Crosland: No, Sir. There would be no point in the submission of plans to my Department if my views were not to be made known to the authority and this may involve reconsideration of the plans.

Dame Irene Ward: Could I have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that if a local authority, after consideration, decides to put forward its educational development against the comprehensive system, his Department or he himself will exercise no pressure on the free decision of that or other local education authorities? Would the right hon. Gentleman also express a view—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will allow this one, but there should be only one question in a supplementary.

Dame Irene Ward: Would the Minister please say whether he believes in the freedom of local education authorities or whether he seeks to dictate to them?

Mr. Crosland: I have no desire to dictate and I believe in the freedom of local authorities. The fact is—and there are many precedents for this under all Administrations—that the Government have now said that it is their national policy to move towards comprehensive reorganisation. I do not propose to dictate this policy to local authorities, mainly because I am certain, from the response we have had so far, that we shall move in this direction by co-operation and agreement.

Mr. Rhodes: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that were he to accept the request of the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) he would be acting in a very irresponsible manner? Does he appreciate that if a local authority submits plans which are inefficient, cumbersome or inequitable as between people


or districts he would have a public duty to make recommendations for their alteration?

Mr. Crosland: That is absolutely true. And since almost all plans involve powers which the Secretary of State has under Section 13 of the 1944 Act, he is not in any position to divest himself of this responsibility.

Swimming Teachers (State Registration)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action he is taking in the light of the views expressed to him by the Swimming Teachers Association of Great Britain and the Commonwealth in their recent correspondence with him about state registration of full-time and part-time professional swimming teachers; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Denis Howell: I regard the teaching of swimming as a matter of importance, and good qualifications should certainly be encouraged. But I do not consider that it would be appropriate to introduce legislation requiring the registration of professional swimming teachers.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister not realise that the science and art of swimming in this country compares very unfavourably with that of other countries? Should we not try to emulate the help which is given to teachers of swimming in other countries, which realise that swimming is good for the health and physique of the nation as well as for life saving?

Mr. Howell: Although we in this country broadly accept the proposition which my hon. and learned Friend has put to me, we think that it is extremely important that teachers should be educationists first and specialists second.

European Space Research Organisation (Contracts)

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress is being made by the European Space Research Organisation; what percentage of contracts so far let by the Organisation has gone to

British contractors; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Crosland: E.S.R.O. came into being in March, 1964, and has made considerable progress in recruiting staff and in creating its establishments. It has already launched eight sounding rockets, Skylarks and Centaures, and will launch several times that number in the next 12 months. Contracts for its first two satellites have been placed. These are scheduled for launching in 1967. Contracts for four more satellites are likely to be let by next summer.
At a recent check of major contracts the United Kingdom had secured some 20 per cent. by value. These include the main contract for one of the first two satellites. Several additional contracts have since come to the United Kingdom but there are more to be won and, therefore, further opportunities for British companies.

Mr. Lloyd: In view of the probably widespread importance of these experiments to British industry in future, would the right hon. Gentleman arrange for as much publicity as possible to be given to these experiments?

Mr. Crosland: Yes, Sir. This is being discussed inter-departmentally now.

University of the Air

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress has been made in the establishment of a university of the air.

Miss Jennie Lee: A study of the educational scope and functions of a university of the air has been completed, and the Government are now considering the financial, organisational and technical questions involved.

Mr. Hamilton: Is my hon. Friend completely satisfied that it is a practical proposition and when will she be publishing a White Paper on her findings?

Miss Lee: I am completely satisfied that it is a practical and deeply desirable proposition. A White Paper may very well be produced, but only when the questions which are now being examined, financial and organisational, have been settled.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: Would the hon. Lady not agree that the present title is somewhat misleading as to the scope and possible methods of implementing this suggestion? Could she not find a better title and has she consulted the University Grants Committee on the project?

Miss Lee: I have looked into this matter carefully. We think that the title is appropriate and I had a representative of the University Grants Committee on the very distinguished educational committee which advised me in its unanimous report.

Universities Building Programme

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science to what extent the Universities Building Programme is being delayed by the recent financial restrictions; and what reduction in the previous plan of capital expenditure is anticipated for the year 1965–66.

Mr. Crosland: In general, all university building projects planned to start since 27th July, other than those in development districts, are subject to six months' deferment. A number of exemptions have, however, been made where exceptional circumstances apply. The present estimate is that about three-quarters of the current fifteen-month programme of starts will be fulfilled, and about one-quarter will be deferred until 1966–67. But the Chancellor and I are keeping the position under review.

Mr. Taylor: Will the Minister indicate what this means in terms of money and in terms of student places? Has he consulted the U.G.C. about the effect of these cuts, and does he still seriously believe that the Robbins target for 1967 can be achieved?

Mr. Crosland: My Answer was couched in terms of value, so that answers the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. In terms of numbers of students, it is impossible to say what the exact effect might be, partly because we do not yet know the admission figures for 1965–66—that is, for this autumn; partly because we do not know what the result of the constant review between the Chancellor and myself may be, and partly because we do not

know what possibilities might be open to the universities in achieving a relatively higher admission figure with a relatively lower figure of building starts. It is, therefore, not possible to give an exact student number projection, but it is my hope to keep to the Robbins figure.

Mr. Hogg: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman, whatever the effect on availability of student places, give an explicit assurance that the Robbins figures still remain the Government's intention, and that they intend to keep it?

Mr. Crosland: Yes, Sir, I can give that assurance.

Universities (Admissions)

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many young people in Scotland, and in England and Wales, respectively, were unable to obtain admission to university this session although possessing the minimum qualifications for entry.

Mr. Crosland: I regret that this information is not available.

Mr. Taylor: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the figures here are very substantial and represent an appalling loss of potential science teachers and doctors which the nation cannot afford, and does he not feel that a responsible Minister should resign rather than accept these cuts?

Mr. Crosland: I agree that the nation cannot afford any avoidable waste of any talent at any point and this is why this Government—and, to be fair, their predecessors—are doing everything to achieve their programme of expansion. The reason why figures are not available is partly because what information there is does not distinguish between applicants resident in Scotland and those resident in England and Wales; and partly because of the difficulty of distinguishing between applicants possessing minimum qualifications for entry to the course of their choice, and applicants not so qualified.

University Technicians (Salary Claim)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what action he intends to


take in the matter of the salary claim of university technicians;
(2) what steps he is taking to encourage the universities to undertake adequate negotiations with the trade unions on the revaluation claim for technicians which the unions submitted in March and on which the universities had undertaken to negotiate.

Mr. Crosland: I am anxious to see an amicable settlement of the pay claim for university laboratory technicians, which will provide a fair result in line with the Government's prices and incomes policy. But I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to intervene at present.

Mr. Allaun: Since one of the universities has stated that the delay has resulted from the Ministry wanting longer to consider the claim, can my right hon. Friend now state what his own attitude is, particularly as many of these highly skilled technicians are receiving £12 2s. a week, before stoppages, when they could be earning far more than that packing cornflakes?

Mr. Crosland: No, Sir. I should not like to state what my position is because, as Minister, I do not have any part in these negotiations. They are negotiations between the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and the unions.

Mr. Hogg: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the adequacy of the negotiating machinery in this particular dispute?

Mr. Crosland: I should prefer not to make a comment on that. I am perfectly well aware that the union—the Association of Scientific Workers—has some very strong complaint against the machinery, as well as against the offer made to them on 24th August by the Vice-Chancellors, but while the matter is to so large a degree sub judice I would prefer not to be drawn further.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Shops (Five-Day Week)

Sir E. Bullus: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy regarding the operation by shops of a five-day week; and if he will make a statement.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Thomas): It is for the individual shopkeeper to decide whether to operate a five-day trading week. Some difficulties in the way of doing so have been removed by the provisions of the Shops (Early Closing Days) Act 1965.

Sir E. Bullus: In any future legislation, will the Home Secretary and his Department have regard to the small shopkeeper who might desire to give to the public a more adequate service than five days a week? Will the hon. Gentleman see that no restrictions are placed on this desire?

Mr. Thomas: When the views of the trade on our booklet "Retail Trading Hours" are known we will, of course, take into consideration what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has just said.

Mr. Thorneycroft: But will the Under-Secretary make it absolutely plain that, subject to the proper control of working hours of individual shop workers, the longer shops keep open and the later shops keep open for the benefit of the customer, and the more they compete, the better?

Mr. Thomas: It is up to the shopkeeper to decide for how many hours he keeps open, as long as the assistants are protected.

Immigrants (Dispersal)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to encourage a wider dispersal of immigrants throughout the United Kingdom.

The Under-Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. Maurice Foley): I have been asked to reply, since this is a matter for which I have a special responsibility.
Voluntary dispersal of immigrants depends on their being able to find work easily in other areas. That is likely to be one result of the Government's measures to secure a more even distribution of jobs over the United Kingdom as a whole.

Mr. Hamilton: Can my hon. Friend saw what consultations he has had on this subject with local authorities throughout the United Kingdom, and would it not


have been better to have given in the White Paper issued a short time ago some indication of the response of local authorities?

Mr. Foley: There have been discussions with the local authority associations, and these are continuing. If my hon. Friend has any particular suggestion to make, I would be delighted to hear from him.

Oral Answers to Questions — ADEN

Terrorist Attacks (Casualties)

Mr. Fisher: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many terrorist attacks have taken place in Aden during the past year; and how many people have been killed and injured as a result of them.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Anthony Greenwood): There have been 255 terrorist incidents in Aden State since 1st October, 1964, resulting in 29 persons being killed and 201 injured.

Mr. Fisher: Can the Secretary of State say whether there has been any improvement that he can detect since the suspension of the Aden Constitution? In view of the really rather grave figures he has announced, and the reprehensible activities of the so-called National Liberation Front, will he accept that we on this side fully understand that he really had no alternative but to suspend the Aden Constitution, which action has the support of the Opposition?

Mr. Greenwood: One does not want to be over-optimistic too early, but it does appear that since the date to which the hon. Gentleman has referred there has been a reduction in the number of terrorist attempts. They have continued, but, so far, fortunately, the recent attempts have been abortive, and a number of leaders of the terrorist movement have now been put into detention, and we consider that there is reason to believe that the improvement will continue.

Mr. William Yates: Will the Minister also take into account that there are hon. Members on this side of the House and in his own party—his Parliamentary Private Secretary, indeed, resigned when he saw what the Labour Party policy—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting on to a Question which is on the Order Paper, addressed to the Prime Minister.

Mr. Yates: Very well.

Oral Answers to Questions — MAURITIUS

Constitution

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the constitutional proposals for Mauritius.

Mr. Greenwood: The report of the Constitutional Conference in September was published on 21st October as Cmnd. Paper No. 2797. The main proposal is that, if the conditions set out in the White Paper are met, Mauritius will achieve independence about the end of 1966. With permission, I will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT a summary of the proposals.

Mr. Wall: While congratulating the Secretary of State on the result of this conference, and particularly on the degree of safeguards there are for minorities, may I ask him to bear in mind that when a country changes from a monarchical to a republican constitution, these safeguards can be swept away? This has happened in other Commonwealth countries in the past. Will the right hon. Gentleman bear this in mind with regard to Mauritius?

Mr. Greenwood: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his remarks. This Constitution is unique, I think, among constitutions in the number of safeguards it contains. We are satisfied that, as far as practicable, everything has been done to safeguard the basic freedoms. I know of nothing to suggest that any of the main political parties would wish in any way to depart from the spirit of the Constitution.

Mr. James Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that all parties in the island want the electoral commission to go out as quickly as possible? Can he say when the commission will go, and what its composition will be?

Mr. Greenwood: If my hon. Friend will put down a Question at a later stage, I will tell him the membership of the


commission. I anticipate that it will include three Members, and I am already having discussions with a view to deciding exactly who those three representatives shall be.

Following is the summary of the proposals:
The outline constitutional scheme includes provisions for the preservation of Human Rights; for securing the continued impartiality of the judicial system and the Commissions concerned with the Public Service, the Legal and Judicial Service and the Police; and for dealing with prosecutions and the exercise of the prerogative of mercy. For the first time in such a constitution provision is made for an Ombudsman.
A Commission will be appointed to make recommendations on:

(i) the electoral system, and the method of allocating seats in the Legislature, most appropriate for Mauritius; and
(iii) the boundaries of electoral constituencies.

The Commission will be guided by the following principles:—

(a) The system should be based primarily on multi-member constituencies.
(b) Voters should be registered on a common roll; there should be no communal electoral rolls.
(c) The system should give the main sections of the population an opportunity of securing fair representation of their interests if necessary by the reservation of seats.
(d) No encouragement should be afforded to the multiplication of small parties.
(e) There should be no provision for the nomination of members to seats in the Legislature.
(f) Provision should be made for the representation of Rodrigues.

When the electoral Commission has reported, a date will be fixed for a general election under the new system, after which a new Government will be formed. In consultation with this Government, Her Majesty's Government will be prepared to fix a date and take the necessary steps to declare Mauritius independent, after a period of six months full internal self-government, if a resolution asking for this is passed by a simple majority of the new Assembly. Her Majesty's Government would expect that these processes could be completed before the end of 1966.
In the course of the Conference, it became clear that all parties wanted Mauritius to continue her collaboration with Britain in matters of defence; and Her Majesty's Government agreed that they would be willing in principle to negotiate with the Mauritius Government, before independence, the terms of a defence agreement which would be signed and come into effect immediately after independence. Her Majesty's Government envisage that such an agreement might provide that,

in the event of an external threat to either country, the two governments would consult together to decide what action was necessary for mutual defence. There would also be joint consultation on any request from the Mauritius Government in the event of a threat to the internal security of Mauritius. Such an agreement would contain provisions under which on the one hand the British Government would undertake to assist in the provision of training for, and the secondment of trained personnel to, the Mauritius Police and Security forces; and on the other hand, the Mauritius Government would agree to the continued enjoyment by Britain of existing rights and facilities in H.M.S. "Mauritius" and at Plaisance Airfield.

Oral Answers to Questions — GIBRALTAR

Under-Secretary of State's Visit

Mr. George Jeger: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement on the recent visit of the Under-Secretary of State to Gibraltar; and what action is now being taken to sustain the economy of the Colony.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mrs. Eirene White): Accompanied by my hon. Friends the Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State for Defence for the Army and for the Navy, I visited Gibraltar from 14th to 16th September to examine with the Governor and others concerned questions of land and housing which affect both the Ministry of Defence and the civil economy of Gibraltar. We also met members of the Study Group who are preparing a comprehensive development plan for the Gibraltar Government and discussed the possible implications for the Services of the Study Group's proposals for development.

Mr. Jeger: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a considerable amount of feeling in Gibraltar that there has been a year of dithering over the protection of the people of this loyal Colony and that they have a right to expect protection and support from the Government? Will she speed up the work of the Study Group?

Mrs. White: As I should suppose my hon. Friend would know, the Study Group was appointed by the Gibraltar Government and is working on their direction. It would be foolish for us


to intervene until the Gibraltar Government had had an opportunity to discuss the proposals.

Situation

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on Gibraltar.

Mrs. White: There has been no change in the general nature of the restrictions imposed by the Spanish authorities at the frontier with Gibraltar from those set out in the White Paper presented last April. Since mid-July delays to vehicles entering and leaving Gibraltar have been reduced from approximately one hour for each vehicle to an average of between 10 and 30 minutes for each vehicle.

Mr. Wall: Can the Minister say what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to initiate talks with Spain? Can she also say when it is proposed to give constitutional advances to Gibraltar from the present interim constitution which will guarantee that Gibraltar and the Gibraltarians will remain forever British?

Mrs. White: The hon. Member has a Question down to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary for answer today. On the second part of his supplementary question, he will have seen the statement of 7th October, by the elected members of the Gibraltar Legislative Council which recognises that precipitate action at present would not be in the interests of the people of Gibraltar.

Mr. Maude: Is the hon. Lady aware that this is not good enough? The Gibraltar crisis has gone on now for a year. Is it not time that Her Majesty's Government, which through the actions and speeches of the Prime Minister were in some measure responsible for precipitating this crisis, should at least take some action to bring it to an end?

Mrs. White: As the hon. Member, who has come rather recently to this field, will be aware, his own Government when in office had a ten-year crisis in Gibraltar and it was very largely their actions and the tactless way in which they introduced the present Constitution which was responsible for the crisis we are in now.

Oral Answers to Questions — ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

National Board for Prices and Incomes

Mr. Fisher: asked the First Secretary and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will now authorise the National Board for Prices and Incomes to select the price arrangements and wage settlements it wishes to examine.

The First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. George Brown): No, Sir.

Mr. Fisher: As the right hon. Gentleman, I think rightly, has confidence in the Prices and Incomes Board, would it not be logical to give them the right of choice as well as recommendation and to produce an atmosphere of greater impartiality and independence for the Board?

Mr. Brown: In view of the hon. Member's use of the word "rightly" in commending what I have been doing, may I ask him to convey that to some members of his own Front Bench? On the second part of his supplementary question, the answer is still "No" because the whole policy right from the beginning, agreed by everyone except the Opposition Front Bench, has proceeded on the basis that the Government in the end should decide which cases should go to the Board.

National Plan (Colour Television)

Mr. Barnett: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if in the context of the National Plan he will take steps to ensure that the provision of colour television has a very low priority.

Mr. George Brown: I will see it gets the priority it deserves.

Mr. Barnett: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that it shows an odd sense of priorities to speed the bringing in of colour television while limiting the growth of public expenditure in the field of education and the social services and in particular, as shown by the National Plan, limiting aid to underdeveloped countries?

Mr. Brown: I do not know who has this odd sense of priorities.

Oral Answers to Questions — BOARD OF TRADE

August Bank Holiday

Sir E. Bullus: asked the President of the Board of Trade what reports he has had as to the success or otherwise of changing the Bank Holiday week to the end of August; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Roy Mason): The change resulted in some easing of the pressure on transport and holiday accommodation at the beginning of August, but seems to have had little effect in replacing earlier main holidays with main holidays in September.

Sir E. Bullus: Will the hon. Gentleman keep an open mind on this question? Does he visualise the possibility of reverting to the original practice if there is a failure in the years ahead? I ask this with the full knowledge that he may have no responsibility in the matter within 12 months.

Hon Members: Oh.

Mr. Mason: In keeping with our promises in October, 1964, we have planned for the extension of the Bank Holidays for the next four years.

Refrigerators (Imports)

Miss Harvie Anderson: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will take steps to control the import of refrigerators, in view of the present threat to the home market and consequently to the United Kingdom export potential.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. George Darling): No, imports of domestic refrigerators are subject to a duty of 4½ per cent. from European Free Trade Association countries and 12 per cent. from other countries outside the Commonwealth Preference Area, and all imports are at present subject to the 10 per cent. temporary import charge. Imports still amount to only about 8 per cent. of the home market and are less in value than our exports.

Miss Harvie Anderson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that imports amount to £1½ million for the present year? Is he further aware that exporters' rebate

in their own country amounts to 11 per cent. in the field of compressors and 6·6 per cent. for domestic refrigerator cabinets? Does he not think this excessive and will he undertake to re-examine the matter?

Mr. Darling: The hon. Lady is referring to imports of Italian refrigerators. The British Government have made known to the Italian Government our doubts about the level of export rebate on goods containing iron and steel. This is now subject to the result of a case brought by the Commission of the European Economic Community before the Community's Court. We are awaiting the outcome of that consideration.

Stockholm Convention (Export of British Motor Vehicles)

Miss Harvie Anderson: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consult Great Britain's European Free Trade Association partners with a view to altering the position whereby under Article 6 of the Stockholm Convention certain countries have retained customs duty for revenue purposes, thus making difficult the export of British motor vehicles to a number of markets.

Mr. Mason: The action taken by these countries is permissible under Article 6 of the Convention. But my right hon. Friend agrees that it is contrary to the spirit of E.F.T.A., and we have made our dissatisfaction clear. We shall continue to pursue this issue as the opportunity arises.

Miss Harvie Anderson: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that 30 per cent. of the possible benefit from the E.F.T.A. Agreement is lost by the operation of Article 6? Has he pressed for an improvement in this position to be reached at an early date to improve our own export position?

Mr. Mason: On every opportunity this is being done.

Mr. Emery: Does not the Minister agree that there is very little likelihood of getting this sort of co-operation while we still have a temporary—I repeat ternporary—10 per cent. import surcharge on our imported goods?

Mr. Mason: No. This does not directly concern this Question and has not been


brought to our attention when we have made our dissatisfaction clear on the matter.

British Shipowners Special Credits)

Mr. Murton: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now take steps to apply to British shipowners building new tonnage in the United Kingdom the special credits at five and a half per cent. granted to foreign owners ordering new tonnage in this country.

Mr. Mason: No, Sir. But I am well aware of the attitude of the shipowners on this issue and I expect that they will refer to it in the general submission they are making to the Government.

Mr. Murton: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the British Merchant Navy is engaged in an industry in which we lead the world? Does he think that the long-term implications which this will have will mean that British shipowners will be denied something which is given to foreign interests in the nature of cheap credit?

Mr. Mason: This does not affect the competitive position of British shipowners. Credit on these terms was available in foreign countries before these easier and cheaper credit terms were introduced in Britain.

Mr. Shinwell: Is it not anomalous that foreign shipowners should receive this very useful benefit and British shipowners be deprived of it?

Mr. Mason: I must remind my right hon. Friend that these credits were available in foreign countries before we introduced them. What this has done is to enable our industry to capture some of these orders which previously were going abroad.

Cotton Textiles

Mr. Mapp: asked the President of the Board of Trade if agreement has been reached on the import of cotton textiles for 1966 onwards; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Darling: Our proposals for the regulation of imports of cotton textiles after the end of this year were sent

formally to overseas countries early in September. Discussion of these proposals cannot be completed in time to bring agreed arrangements into operation from the beginning of 1966. My right hon. Friend has, therefore, informed other countries that an interim scheme will be necessary in order to keep trade moving. This, of course, is without prejudice to the eventual settlement.

Mr. Mapp: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the possibility of unilateral action at the Hong Kong end of the negotiations? Will he ensure that, if there is any unilateral action, his Ministry will have firm proposals ready to deal with any torpedoeing of this sensible plan of gearing imports to the efficiency of the whole industry?

Mr. Darling: Yes. We have all these considerations in mind.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Will the Minister of State think again about the reports that there will be a built-in or automatic increase for foreign and Commonwealth imports in future years? This is something which the cotton industry and the Cotton Board dislike very much.

Mr. Darling: Yes. I would prefer not to say anything more at this stage, but we certainly have that matter in mind in the considerations which are now under way.

E.F.T.A. (Aberdeen Exporters)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state his plans to increase trade between Aberdeen and Northern Europe.

Mr. Mason: The steady increase in trade within E.F.T.A. between the United Kingdom and Northern Europe should offer ample opportunities for exporters in Aberdeen. The export services of the Board of Trade are always available to help them. I hope that they will take full advantage of the British Trade Fair to be held in Oslo next year.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Does not the Minister of State realise that the southeast of England in the matter of exports to Europe is very much better treated than the northeast of Scotland, which is penalised? Will my hon. Friend take steps to remove this disparity and to increase trade, industry and commerce


from the north-east of Scotland to Europe?

Mr. Mason: I remind my hon. and learned Friend of what I said in my original Answer, that a British Trade Fair is to be held in Oslo in the spring of 1966 in which it is hoped that Scottish industries will play a full part. It is already known that three firms from the Aberdeen area engaged in the shipbuilding industry will be prominently exhibiting.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

Motorway and Trunk Road Schemes (Restrictions)

Mr. Tilney: asked the Minister of Transport to what extent restrictions on motorway and trunk road schemes will make idle road-making equipment and thus lead to the increased cost of such schemes.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): Only to a relatively small extent, which is unlikely in itself to influence road construction prices.

Mr. Tilney: Have not lessons been learned from the stopping of the M.1 and of the railing programme on roads? Is it not dangerous to do this?

Mr. Swingler: We want to maintain continuity of work. In fact, contracts to a higher value than last year had already been placed before the deferment programme. In spite of the deferment programme, we reckon we shall maintain continuity of work and we have no evidence of the point made by the hon. Gentleman.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Lord Hinton

Sir M. Redmayne: asked the Minister of Transport under what circumstances Lord Hinton resigned his post as Special Adviser on Transport Planning.

Mr. Swingler: Lord Hinton left the Ministry when he had completed the work my right hon. Friend had asked him to undertake.

Sir M. Redmayne: The Minister should realise that the reception of that Answer proves how doubtfully we regard it. Is it not a fact that Lord Hinton's report was thoroughly unsatisfactory to the Government? Is it not time that the Minister made a statement in the House about where the Government stand?

Mr. Swingler: If the Answer is received with any doubt, it is only because hon. Members have not been following what has been going on. When my right hon. Friend announced the appointment of Lord Hinton, he announced that he would be appointed as a temporary civil servant for a limited period. That was what was said at the very beginning. That is what has happened. Lord Hinton has completed his studies and my right hon. Friend will make a statement shortly.

Sir M. Redmayne: asked the Minister of Transport what report on the integration of transport was submitted by Lord Hinton before his resignation; and what is the Government's policy towards it.

Mr. Swingler: My right hon. Friend has received a number of reports from Lord Hinton, which are being taken into account in the development of policies for the co-ordination of transport.

Sir M. Redmayne: That is a lot better. We are getting nearer the truth. I must press the Minister and reaffirm that we want an early statement. May I ask him a related question? We are given to understand that Lord Hinton will still serve on the Transport Advisory Council. This has been announced in public. How can Lord Hinton do that in his present employment?

Mr. Swingler: Lord Hinton remains a member of the Transport Advisory Council. Like other members of the Transport Advisory Council, he has other occupations and he will be attending from time to time. He has completed the full-time study for which he was appointed as originally announced and, as has been repeated by my right hon. Friend in the House half a dozen times to the right hon. Gentleman, a statement will be made shortly.

Sir R. Thompson: Surely this is most unsatisfactory? Does not the Parliamentary Secretary realise that the House


was promised a statement founded on what Lord Hinton had to say about the integration of transport? As the Government have sacked Lord Beeching and are now disowning Lord Hinton, where has the problem of the integration of transport now got to?

Mr. Swingler: There are some limits to the inaccurate and untrue statements which can be made. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the Government did not sack Lord Beeching. Lord Beeching asked to be relieved of his duties—

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are getting a little wide of the Question.

Mr. Swingler: My right hon. Friend has promised a statement, and he will make a statement. That statement will come very soon.

Oral Answers to Questions — ADEN (BASE)

Mr. Newens: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the future of the base at Aden.

The First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. George Brown): I have been asked to reply.
I would ask my hon. Friend to await the outcome of the Defence Review.

Mr. Newens: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, despite what has been said today, many people in this country regard the decision to suspend the Constitution of Aden as mistaken? Are the Government prepared to recognise that in the long run the maintenance of a base in Aden must be subject to the agreement and consent of the democratically elected representatives of the people of Aden?

Mr. Brown: There is a certain amount in what my hon. Friend says. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said again and again, obviously a base cannot be kept in a territory where the local inhabitants are against it. Having said that, I would still ask my hon. Friend to await the outcome of the Review.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this year the Estimates contain the sum of £7 million for land and buildings in Aden? Is not this a shocking waste of money if the Defence

Review comes to the conclusion that we should get out of Aden?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman said "if the Defence Review comes to the conclusion". May I ask him to await the outcome of the Review?

Mr. Heath: Do the Government still adhere to the decisions of the South Arabian Conference of July, 1964, including the fact that there would be independence not later than 1968 and that there should be a defence agreement for the use of the base?

Mr. Brown: I am asked about the base. I am not asked about the wider question. I repeat that a statement about the base will be made when we have the result of the Defence Review.

Mr. Heath: The base was part of the decisions of the South Arabian Conference.

Mr. Brown: I well know that. That anybody knows. I am asked to make a statement on the future of the base. The answer to that remains that it will be made when we have the Defence Review.

Mr. Heath: I must press the First Secretary on this. We are not asking whether this is governed by the result of the Defence Review. I am asking him whether the Government still adhere to the decisions of the 1964 South Arabian Conference. This was an agreement which covered the base. We are asking whether this will be taken account of in the Defence Review. It is a perfectly straightforward question.

Mr. Brown: And it is a perfectly straightforward answer. The right hon. Gentleman can table that Question, if he wishes. If he tables the Question, he will get an Answer to it. The Answer to the present Question is that we ask the House to await the outcome of the Review.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEASEHOLD SYSTEM (TRANSFER OF MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Prime Minister why he has transferred responsibility for leasehold questions from the Minister of Housing and Local Government to the Minister of Land and Natural Resources.

Mr. George Brown: I have been asked to reply.
Legislation about the leasehold system will concern several Ministers. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister thought it appropriate that, because of his general responsibilities in relation to land, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Land and Natural Resources should be responsible for its preparation and introduction.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is not it a somewhat odd arrangement from the point of view of the machinery of Government that one Minister, the Minister of Housing, should be responsible for arrangements affecting landlord and tenants where there is a short tenancy and another Minister responsible where the tenancy is longer? Secondly, from the practical point of view, as we are told that the Minister of Land and Natural Resources has a not wholly uncontroversial Measure to bring forward regarding the Land Commission, does not this in practice mean that the Leaseholds Bill will be squeezed out of next Session as it has been out of this?

Mr. Brown: The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows full well that I cannot anticipate the Queen's Speech.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEAT IMPORTS (PROCUREMENT AND PHASING)

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: asked the Prime Minister what steps he is taking to co-ordinate the activities of the Ministers concerned with the procurement and phasing of meat imports into the home market.

Mr. George Brown: I have been asked to to reply.
The Ministers concerned work closely together and no further steps are necessary.

Mr. Hill: Can the First Secretary say when the White Paper will be implemented by legislation?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman equally knows only too well that I cannot anticipate the Queen's Speech.

Mr. McBride: Can my right hon. Friend say whether in relation to the sale of imported meat in the British home

market there is any evidence of a monopolistic trend becoming apparent?

Mr. Brown: That question does not seem to me to get into quite the same area but I will take note of the implications of my hon. Friend's question.

Oral Answers to Questions — SINGAPORE (BASE)

Mr. Blaker: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about the future of the British base at Singapore.

Mr. George Brown: I have been asked to reply.
Not until we have made further progress with the Defence Review and have had detailed discussions with Singapore and our other allies.

Mr. Blaker: Is our presence in the base at Singapore at present covered by any formal arrangement with the Government of Singapore?

Mr. Brown: Yes, indeed. In the course of the separation which has occurred this was taken account of by Singapore and ourselves and Malaysia. There is no problem here.

Mr. Heath: Is not it the case that a defence agreement has to be renegotiated with Singapore? Can the right hon. Gentleman say exactly what the position is on these negotiations? Have they started? If not, when are they likely to start? Is not it in the interests of both Singapore and ourselves that this matter should be pressed ahead?

Mr. Brown: When the separation occurred the position of the base was taken care of in the arrangements which were made between the two parties there and ourselves, and that remains protected by this arrangement.

Mr. Heath: I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to look at this matter again. Is not it the case that the well-known position is that the defence agreement with Singapore has to be renegotiated? I believe that it is in the interests of Singapore in the renegotiating of a defence agreement that the matter should be pressed ahead. Can I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look at it again? It is a highly technical matter.

Mr. Brown: I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look at it again. The


legislation covering the separation of Singapore states specifically that the Government of Singapore
will permit the Government of the United Kingdom to make such use of these bases and facilities as that Government may consider necessary for the purposes of assisting in the defence of Singapore and Malaysia and for Commonwealth defence and for the preservation of peace in South-East Asia.
That was the position before and that is the position preserved in this arrangement. There is nothing now to look at.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Mr. Gower: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards the European Economic Community.

Mr. George Brown: I have been asked to reply.
Our objective remains to see a wider European market established embracing the United Kingdom, the countries of the Community and the members of the European Free Trade Association and open to any other European countries which wish to participate.

Mr. Gower: Would not the First Secretary concede that is a very dusty Answer to give to the House? Has he noted the more forthcoming attitude of the Liberal Party and the Conservative Opposition? Does the answer really mean that no initiative on this important matter can ever be exnected from the party opposite?

Mr. Brown: On the contrary. I fear that the hon. Gentleman wrote the supplementary question before he heard the Answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — DHALA CAMPAIGN (MEDAL)

Mr. Norwood: asked the Prime Minister when it is proposed to issue a campaign medal for the Dhala campaign; and why the decision has been delayed.

Mr. George Brown: I have been asked to reply.
This matter is under consideration.

Mr. Norwood: Is the First Secretary aware—as I suspect he is—that the matter has been under consideration for a con

siderable period of time? Is he aware that there is a very strong argument that if we issue medals to those who serve in the Radfan campaign we should equally recognise the service of British people near the Yemeni frontier?

Mr. Brown: I cannot add to the Answer. The matter is under consideration. There are certain complications here but we are considering it.

Mr. Goodhart: Is the First Secretary aware that if this matter had reached its final stage in June it is surprising that it has not gone further? Is he also aware that there is considerable complaint about the delay in dealing with recommendations for awards for gallantry in Aden?

Mr. Brown: No, Sir, I am not aware of that, but I assure the hon. Member that there are reasons here for considering the matter very carefully.

Oral Answers to Questions — STEEL NATIONALISATION

Sir Knox Cunningham: asked the Prime Minister when the steel nationalisation Bill will now be introduced.

Mr. George Brown: I have been asked to reply.
Not this Session, Sir.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recall the pledge given by the Prime Minister to the House on 18th March that a Steel Bill would be introduced this Session? Is this to be treated as another one of Labour's broken promises?

Mr. Brown: The hon. and learned Member would be surprised how many statements made in the House on this subject I recall.

Mr. Heath: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm the Prime Minister's undertaking on television on 20th July that the Steel Bill would be in the programme for next Session? [HON. MEMBERS: "Wait."] I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not be more modest than the Prime Minister in giving his answer to this. The Prime Minister was prepared to give an undertaking about the Queen's Speech. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will confirm it.

Mr. Brown: I shall certainly observe the proprieties. I cannot possibly anticipate the Gracious Speech.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. DEREK PAGE: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what proposals he has to simplify the formalities required for the drawback of temporary surcharge on chemicals used in the manufacture of products for export.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Derek Page, Question No. 45.

Mr. Derek Page: May I have an Answer to my Question?

Hon. Members: Where is the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Mr. George Brown: May I say on behalf of all of us that we regret that because we have made under your chairmanship, Mr. Speaker, such exceptionally good progress, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not here to answer the Question? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I say that we regret it. I am sorry about it. If the answer to that kind of approach is that kind of response from the benches opposite it will only make life more difficult.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order. Is not it a contempt of the House, Mr. Speaker, for a Minister who has a Question for Answer on the Order Paper not to stay until the end of the Questions Hour?

Mr. Speaker: "Contempt" of the House is a strong word, especially when it is remembered that no Minister is obliged to answer any Question.

Mr. Heath: That may be the case technically, but is not this an extraordinary example—the first that I can remember in my 15 years in the House—and a case of singular incompetence by the Government in that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not here? May I make the practical suggestion that the only Treasury Minister on the Front Bench, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, should answer the Question?

Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to his bit of fun. We are very sorry about this, but may I remind the right hon. Gentleman that if he likes to look up the precedents he will find that this happened many times in his own Administration?

Mr. Heath: No.

HOUSE BUILDING (TALKS)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: (by Private Notice): I desire to ask the Minister of Housing and Local Government a Question of which I have given him Private Notice—if I may say so, I am grateful to him for being here—whether he will make a statement on his discussions with the building societies about his proposals for restraining the growth of house building for home ownership?

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Richard Crossman): At their own request, I have now extended the talks I have been having with the Building Societies Association to include a highly representative group of builders from the house construction side of the industry. The first meeting of this enlarged group took place yesterday, and I hope before very long to be able to give the House a first report on the progress of the talks.
Meanwhile, I would like to take the opportunity to emphasise that the subject of these talks is the planned expansion of house building, including owner-occupation, and that the right hon. Gentleman's talk of a restrictive aim is wholly misleading.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does not the concluding sentence of the right hon. Gentleman's answer indicate the desirability of the House having an early opportunity to discuss what is an innovation in our affairs, namely, the intention to use these hitherto wholly independent bodies as an instrument of the Minister's in connection with his housing policy? Also, is he aware that many of us are concerned lest any undue pressure or threats of building licensing be introduced into these discussions? Will he give an assurance that no such pressure will be exercised, and will he confirm the statement that the societies themselves have expressed doubts as to the practicality of his proposals?

Mr. Crossman: I think that the House had better wait to discuss the matter until, as I said, I bring to it a first report on the progress of the talks. I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman is generous enough to say that this is the first time that a Government have had the sense to seek the co-operation of the building societies and the building industry in planning the expansion of house building. That is literally true. As to the suggestion that we are trying to use them in any way, all I can tell the right hon. Gentleman is that any Minister who was stupid enough to imagine that one could use people as independent as the building societies or the builders would be a very silly person. What we are doing is quite different. We are seeking for the co-operation of the two essential elements, the building societies and the builders, in ensuring that we can get an increase in house building in the next five years greater than we have had before. I should have hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would welcome the idea and wait till I can tell him how far we have come—taking the third part of his question—in solving the problems of co-operation which naturally arise.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to answer the two questions I put to him in my supplementary question? One, will he give an assurance that no threat or pressure or suggestion of building licensing as an alternative will be introduced into these discussions? Two, will he either confirm or deny the statement that the societies have already expressed to him doubts as to the practicality of his proposals?

Mr. Crossman: I think that the idea that I should now tell the right hon. Gentleman what has been happening in the talks before I make a statement is stupid. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes. I really do. However, I shall give him this assurance. No one is using any kind of threats on either side in these talks. The talks are taking place in an atmosphere of people who, on both sides, are genuinely concerned to expand house building in this country. We are not threatening each other. We are trying to find a basis for a fruitful collaboration between the Government and the industry.

Mr. Lubbock: Does the Minister realise that sensible people in this country will welcome his initiation of discussions with the building societies with a view to increasing the number of people entering into owner-occupation of their own homes? Is one of the measures he is considering the making available of funds to the building societies from Treasury sources at periods when the moneys they receive from depositors are not sufficient to cover their commitments?

Mr. Crossman: Yes, one of the subjects we are discussing is precisely that. I defined this in a previous debate as discussing what should be the target of housing, what should be the floor below which housing should not be permitted to fall, and what steps the Government might take in order to prevent that happening. Clearly, therefore, this is one of the matters which we are actively discussing with the building societies.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Heath: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week?

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Bowden): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 1ST NOVEMBER—Lords Amendments to the Rent Bill.
TUESDAY, 2ND NOVEMBER—Debate on a Motion to approve the Report of the Select Committee on the Palace of Westminster, until seven o'clock.
Afterwards, Lords Amendments to the Race Relations Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 3RD NOVEMBER—Debate on a Motion to welcome the National Plan, Cmnd. 2764.
Motion on the Control of Office Development (Designation of Areas) Order.
THURSDAY, 4TH NOVEMBER—Debate on a Motion to take note of the Report on Developments and Government Action in Wales and Monmouthshire, 1964, Cmnd. 2602.
FRIDAY, 5TH NOVEMBER—It is hoped that Prorogation will take place shortly after 11 a.m.
The new Session will be opened on TUESDAY, 9TH NOVEMBER.

Mr. Heath: May I ask the Leader of the House about three statements? First, may we assume that when the Prime Minister returns from his all-important mission to Salisbury he will then make a full statement to the House, after which we may consider the desirability of having a debate? Second, before the Secretary of State for Defence makes any statement about orders for procurement of aircraft, and before the decisions are actually taken, may we have opportunity for a full debate? Third, when will the Minister of Transport make a statement about any plans he may have for dealing with traffic in London which, on several days this week, has slowly ground to a standstill?

Mr. Bowden: On the first point, with regard to Rhodesia, I shall communicate the right hon. Gentleman's view to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I am sure that he will wish to make a statement as early as possible on his return. As regards procurement of aircraft, I cannot say at this stage what the views of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence are likely to be, but, again, I shall convey the right hon. Gentleman's views to him. Equally, I shall do the same on the subject of transport and London traffic, conveying the right hon. Gentleman's observations to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Freeson: When is it intended to arrange for a debate on the White Paper on Immigration from the Commonwealth?

Mr. Bowden: Not this Session.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: With regard to Monday's business, is the Leader of the House aware that the Lords Amendments, eight pages of them, were available to hon. Members only this morning and, on a complicated Bill like this, this puts hon. Members on both sides in some difficulty, particularly in the event of their desiring to exercise their right to put down Amendments to the Lords Amendments? Can the right hon. Gentleman do something to alleviate the very serious trouble which this kind of timetable involves?

Mr. Bowden: There is nothing new, not previously discussed, in any one of the Amendments. I appreciate that there are 52 or them, but many are drafting

Amendments. There are four or perhaps five matters of great importance here to be discussed, but, there again, the subject matter has been previously discussed. I feel quite sure that the Opposition, in their desire to return security of tenure to so many thousands of people, will help on Monday and see that we get the Bill through.

Mr. Frank Allaun: May I take that question with reference to the Rent Bill further? It will be remembered that, thanks to frustration by the Lords at the end of July, this Bill, which should have come into operation in August, has now been delayed for at least four months, which means a serious loss to many tenants. Is it now possible that, with this mass of Amendments to which reference has just been made, there is a serious chance that the Lords will be frustrating the will of the Commons to the extent of putting this off for a further year?

Mr. Bowden: I think that we had better take it stage by stage. The first stage is to deal with the Lords Amendments on Monday, and, if we so wish, return them to the other place.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In view of that question by the hon. Member for Sal-ford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun), is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the great majority of the Amendments were put in in another place on the initiative of the Government?

Mr. William Yates: Has the Leader of the House noted the great dissatisfaction with the Government's policy in South-West Arabia? Has he received a representation from the Minister to come to the House and express regret at the death of the Speaker of the Federal Parliament in Aden, and, in addition, to give some reason to this House, not treating it with such contempt, why the Constitution was suspended? Further, has the Leader of the House read the Motion which I have tabled, and does not he think that there are elements of real moral cowardice in this matter.

[That this House considers that the disastrous policies pursued by the Secretary of State for the Colonies in South-West Arabia have damaged British commercial relations throughout the Middle East and are contrary to the precepts of the Labour Party and in


defiance of the United Nations, and calls for his resignation and that of Her Majesty's Government.]

Mr. Bowden: Not at all. We debated Southern Arabia in July, before the House rose for the Recess. I agree that there have been some regrettable happenings since. I will convey the hon. Member's views to my right hon. Friend, but I am afraid that there is no opportunity of debating Southern Arabia this side of Prorogation.

Mr. Yates: On a point of order. When the Speaker of a Federal Assembly is assassinated, Mr. Speaker, it is surely the custom of the Minister of the Department concerned to come to the House and make a statement of regret—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have heard the point of order far enough. It is not a point of order.

Mr. Hamling: In view of last night's critical vote, will my right hon. Friend be bringing fresh proposals on procedure before the House?

Mr. Bowden: Personally, I was quite satisfied with last evening's outcome. We shall, no doubt, be having additional proposals from the Select Committee on Procedure for debate—it may be before Christmas.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Will the right hon. Gentleman be willing to allow a little time next week, perhaps on Wednesday, to debate the very serious position, if not the crisis, which faces the shipbuilding industry? May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the urgency of the problem has been accelerated by recent developments on the Clyde and the North-East Coast? Will he allow a little time to discuss this matter as it appears to us that the Minister responsible for shipping is unwilling to take any action to remedy the situation until the Geddes Report is published?

Mr. Bowden: I cannot promise any additional time before Prorogation on Friday of next week, unless, of course, the date of Prorogation is delayed.

Mr. Alfred Morris: May I ask my right hon. Friend—

Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order. I was wondering, Mr. Speaker,

at what point the Chancellor of the Exchequer would answer the Question which appeared on the Order Paper in accordance with Standing Order 8(3), which allows a Minister who is absent during the hour of Question Time to come later to answer Questions.

Mr. Speaker: The Standing Order allows Ministers to answer Questions after Question Time if a request has been made to the Chair. No such request has been made. No point of order arises.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Will my right hon. Friend agree to give sympathetic consideration to an early debate on the North-West Report, which has been in our possession for several months?

Mr. Bowden: I am well aware of the interest in this Report and the desire to debate it. We had better get into the next Session of Parliament and over the Queen's Speech, when many of these matters can be raised before we decide what other debates we shall have this side of Christmas.

Mr. Goodhart: Will the Leader of the House say whether we can expect a statement next week on the progress or lack of progress of the Government's plans to destroy the Territorial Army?

Mr. Bowden: Again, we had better await the Queen's Speech and see whether any legislation is forecast.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not in order for hon. Members to keep standing while another hon. Member is speaking, for the purpose of conveying to the Chair that they want to be called after him.

Mr. Lipton: The possibility of altering the time of Prorogation on 5th November having been mentioned, will my right hon. Friend bear this possibility in mind if there are any delaying tactics on Monday in connection with the Rent Bill?

Mr. Bowden: I do not anticipate any delaying tactics on Monday. There is a great deal to be done on Monday, but I think that we shall get through it all right.

Mr. Ridley: As the Lord President of the Council found time during this Session to debate the White Paper on the National Plan, can he also find time


next week to give the House an opportunity of debating the document entitled "Putting Britain Right Ahead"?

Mr. Bowden: I have not yet seen that document, but I will read it and then make a decision.

Mr. Rankin: Further to the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor), is the hon. Member—and is the House—aware that the Minister concerned with shipbuilding is taking action immediately in regard to the crisis? He is meeting me tonight at five o'clock and with me will be a member of the Government, who is the Member also for the constituency next to Govan—Craigton—and Govan is principally concerned with the present shipbuilding crisis in Glasgow. The Minister is taking action forthwith.

Mr. Speaker: That has nothing to do with the business question.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Even at this late hour, in view of the points made by my right Ion. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), would it not be possible to take Monday's business on Tuesday, and Tuesday's on Monday, to give an extra day for consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Rent Bill?

Mr. Bowden: That sort of rearrangement would be possible, but the hon. Member appreciates, I am sure, that it may be necessary to send back some of the Lords Amendments and that the other place should be given an opportunity to consider them before Prorogation.

Mr. Ogden: Can my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House anticipate on how many occasions the business of the House may be interrupted and suspended to obtain the Royal Assent to very necessary Bills? Will this be kept to the minimum?

Mr. Bowden: I cannot anticipate on how many occasions it will be necessary. The more frequently that we get Royal Assent to Government Bills, naturally the happier I am.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to early-day Motion No. 350, which draws the attention of the House to the proposal by

British Railways to close certain commuter railway services from the outlying districts of north-west London into the City?
[That this House, recognising the need to retain and improve all means whereby commuters can travel quickly and conveniently to work in the City of London, urges Her Majesty's Government to direct British Railways to retain and improve their Midland Region Service to and from Luton and passing through Harpenden, St. Albans, Radlett, Elstree and Mill Hill and terminating at Moorgate.]
In view of the traffic congestion, is it not highly undesirable to close any commuter services? Ought we not, therefore, to have an early opportunity of debating this matter?

Mr. Bowden: It is not for me to comment on the desirability or otherwise of this proposal. At the moment, however, it is before my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport for a decision.

Mr. Peter Thomas: Has the Leader of the House yet had an opportunity to read the valuable Report of the Hughes Parry Committee on the legal status of the Welsh language? As we will have little time next Thursday to debate this Report, do the Government have in mind the provision of time to enable us to debate it?

Mr. Bowden: Not in addition to the debate on Thursday of next week, which is the usual debate on Wales. I have not read the Report but I have read a synopsis of it with interest.

Mr. William Yates: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I would point out to the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. William Yates) that I do not intend to have a second round of business questions. Mr. Bessell.

Mr. William Yates: In the event, Mr. Speaker, may I raise a point of order? You ruled that I could not go any further with my previous point of order to you. Therefore, in view of the thoroughly unsatisfactory nature of the Government's reply, both by the Minister and by the First Secretary of State, I desire to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment. I trust that that is in order.

Mr. Speaker: This is not an appropriate occasion for the hon. Member to give notice that he seeks to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Bessell: I apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, for rising, but I thought that we were still on business questions.

Mr. Speaker: Despite the interruption by the hon. Member for The Wrekin, we are on business questions.

Mr. Bessell: May I, therefore, ask the Leader of the House whether he has noticed the several early-day Motions on the Order Paper in the names of myself and my hon. Friends on the subject of transport? In view of the question put to him by the Leader of the Opposition, may I ask the Leader of the House whether it is possible for us to have an urgent debate next week on the subject of road transport?

Mr. Bowden: I have seen those Motions; many of them were tabled some months ago. It would, of course, be in order to raise this subject during the debate on the Queen's Speech, or perhaps the Opposition, who largely arrange the order of business in the debates on the Queen's Speech, may desire to have a day on it. It is a matter for them.

Sir Knox Cunningham: On a point of order. When an honorary Member asks a Question—[Laughter.] When a right hon. or hon. Member asks a Ques

tion which is not answered—[Interruption.]—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Member is entitled to put his question.

Sir Knox Cunningham: —because the Minister is not present to answer it, does that Question take precedence over the Questions to be asked orally on the next day on which Questions are asked?

Mr. Speaker: I would not answer that question off the cuff, but I should think that in decency it ought to. I will look into the matter.

The First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. George Brown): May I say that, having said that we very much regretted the incident, we will do anything we can to ensure that that sort of arrangement is made?

HONOURABLE LADY HYLTON-FOSTER'S ANNUITY BILL

Ordered,
That if the Honourable Lady Hylton-Foster's Annuity Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House, further proceeding on the Bill shall stand postponed; and that as soon as the proceedings on the Report of any Resolution come to by the Committee on Honourable Lady Hylton-Foster's Annuity [Money] have been concluded the House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.—[Mr. George Brown.]

Orders of the Day — MURDER (ABOLITION OF DEATH PENALTY) BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause I.—(ABOLITION OF DEATH PENALTY FOR MURDER.)

Lords Amendment: In page 1, line 7, at end insert:
() On sentencing any person convicted of murder to imprisonment for life the Court may at the same time declare the period which it recommends to the Secretary of State as the minimum period which in its view should elapse before the Secretary of State orders the release of that person on licence under section 27 of the Prison Act 1952, or section 21 of the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1952.

3.51 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The House will recall that during our own debates, on Second Reading and in Committee and on Report, a good deal of anxiety was expressed in many quarters of the House about the dissociation, as it were, of the judiciary from the actual assessment of how long a convicted murderer sentenced to life imprisonment should remain in prison before being released on licence. In this House no Amendment was proposed which it was felt by the sponsors of the Bill they could accept, and on a Division they were all rejected. Now this Amendment which the Lords have made and I am now suggesting the Commons should agree with does go some way to deal with that anxiety, and in a way which was satisfactory to the Lord Chief Justice and to another place.
I should like to make it clear that the Amendment makes no substantial change in the law. Of course, judges have always had the power to express any relevant opinion about any issue which was before them and at most times have not been remarkable for diffidence in expression of such opinion, and what the present Amendment does is to carry that a little further. It gives a statutory sanction, as it were, to the judges' undoubted power to express such an opinion on conviction. It does not compel a judge to express any opinion, and one would expect that

in a great many cases, perhaps most cases, the judge would not be obliged or feel that it would be useful for him to do so; but if in any case, or in all cases, the trial judge felt it would be useful for him to express such an opinion he now has, under this Amendment, a statutory right to do so.
The House would like to consider what would be the effect of his doing so. The effect, as I understand it, is not to fetter the discretion of the Home Secretary in any way. The decision is ultimately the Home Secretary's, and I gather that it is the opinion of both Houses that ultimately the discretion should be the Home Secretary's and nobody else's, but the Home Secretary must, of course—and always has done—take into account all relevant or helpful opinions to help him to make up his mind as to what he should do and when he should do it. Of course, one imagines that the Home Secretary, certainly the present Home Secretary, who has declared himself often enough on this point, would pay the greatest possible attention to any expression of opinion which the trial judge might make on this point, always bearing in mind that it must be an executive act, an administrative act, for which the Home Secretary is responsible to Parliament.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: I am not anxious in any way to delay the passage of this Bill because, as I think the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) knows, I have, throughout, supported the principle on which this Bill is based, but, having said that, I hope that we are not going to pass this Lords Amendment at this stage without critically examining what it sets out to do.
It has been said that we in this country have a flair for compromise. What I feel is often forgotten is that compromises, like everything else, are sometimes bad and they are sometimes good, and I personally believe that the history of this Bill, if one goes back to 1957, has been dogged by thoroughly bad compromises, and I very much fear that we may be in danger of passing a disappointing compromise this afternoon.
The debate on this matter in the House of Lords was of very short duration, of slightly less than 20 minutes, and it seems to me that there are various


questions which are left completely unanswered by this Amendment to which, it is proposed, we should agree. I am very glad the Home Secretary is here, because one would have thought a matter which raises a question of policy, although, of course, this was a Private Member's Bill, the question of what should be the substitute penalty for murder, should be a matter for the Home Secretary. Therefore, I must specifically ask three questions on this Lords Amendment.
The first question I would ask the Home Secretary is one which was raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) in Committee on the Bill. As I understand it, on sentencing to life imprisonment a person convicted of murder the court may at the same time declare the period which it recommends he should remain in custody. May I ask the Home Secretary this? Is it proposed that on that matter the accused is entitled to be heard by his counsel before the recommendation is made? Is counsel for the accused going to be able to address the court in mitigation? Because, of course, the point made in Committee here was that at the present moment with automatic sentence no mitigating circumstances are put by defence counsel before sentence is passed by the court, and it seems to me that if this is not going to happen then the judge will have the opportunity to make a recommendation which may have grave effect on the Home Secretary's discretion at a later stage without knowing those facts in mitigation which might have been put before him.
I am sure the Home Secretary is aware that, particularly with the abolition of capital punishment, in murder cases pleas of guilty are not wholly unknown, and I should like to know what the position of the court is to be when making a recommendation.
The second point raises, I believe, a far more fundamental question. I would ask the Home Secretary this question. Is it proposed that there is to be any right of appeal against the length of detention recommended by the judge during which the accused should not be released? I think that I know the answer. I think his answer will be, "No, there is no possible right of appeal".
The Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, lays down when an appeal can be made to the Court of Criminal Appeal and it specifically says that an appeal with reference to sentence can be against any order of the court. Presumably a recommendation made by a judge is not an order of the court and therefore does not allow an appeal on that ground.
4.0 p.m.
Further, one sees that the Act says that the recommendation of the court as to the making of an expulsion order is appealable. I think it is clear, particularly if the Home Secretary bears in mind the recent Commonwealth Immigrants Act, of which Section 8 specifically allows for an appeal against a recommendation for deporation, that, as it stands at the moment, a judge, on trying a murder case, would be entitled, on passing a life sentence, to recommend the Home Secretary that that man should not be released for a considerable number of years, perhaps a very long time, say, 25 years, or something like that, without the man's having any means of appeal against that recommendation of the judge. If this is intended to influence the Home Secretary, in that he is going to take into account the recommendation made by the judge, the accused should have the right of appeal against that recommendation just as he has against any other sentence passed by the court. It seems to me that under this Amendment there is no possible right of appeal. I think that there should be, and I hope that the Home Secretary will look at the matter because, as he is aware, there is no right to appeal against a sentence of life imprisonment for non-capital murder as it is a sentence fixed by law and the courts have stated that they have no power to hear such an appeal.
My third question is whether, in practice, the Home Secretary sees this power being used in cases where a court wishes to recommend a long period of detention before which a person should be released, or does he look on it as likely to be used in cases of mercy killing or something of that nature where the court may wish to impose a short period? I cannot help feeling—and I think that this was borne out by what was said by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman)—that this


Amendment is really nothing more than a meaningless form of words which on one interpretation makes no difference to the present situation, but on another interpretation may make grave changes to the law.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I said that it would give statutory authority to what was the position before at common law.

Mr. Carlisle: I was aware that that is what the hon. Gentleman said, and it was very nearly what was said by the Minister from the Home Department in another place when he said that the Home Secretary would not consider himself bound by the recommendation. But if the position at the moment is as the Home Secretary repeated on many occasions during the Committee stage, that he already turns to the judge for his view on the facts of a particular murder case—I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman said he would always propose to write to the judge who tried the case if he was still available to be approached—what difference do the words which it is proposed to add make to the present position?
If, on the other hand, the words are to mean anything, and if the Home Secretary is going to consider himself strongly influenced by the recommendation made at the time of the trial, then surely we should have gone the whole way and allowed the sentence to be determinate and allowed a right of appeal from that sentence?
Having attempted, I hope not wholly destructively, to criticise the wording of the Amendment and the effect that it is likely to have in practice, may I say why I think this is a very disappointing compromise. I would have supported what the majority of the Members in another place supported during the Committee stage, namely, the proposal to give the courts power to give a determinate sentence. I would have supported that subject to one proviso, which was attempted to be introduced into this House and which I believe could have been carried in another place and which, if they had not changed their minds on Report, might well have received support in this House, namely, that there should be a determinate sentence with the right of a body, or indeed of the Home Secretary, to review any sentence

of over a particular length in murder cases.
I believe that the arguments put forward by the Lord Chief Justice during the Committee Stage of this Bill in another place are irrefutable. It is wholly illogical, when doing away at one stage with a fixed penalty for murder, to replace it with another fixed penalty as the Amendment proposes. I find it difficult to see how one can justify saying that for murder we must have a fixed penalty, if at the same time we give complete power to and have trust in our judges to pass any sentence on a conviction for manslaughter, when the question of whether it is manslaughter or murder may, in the case of provocation, turn on one word, or in the case of diminished responsibility turn literally on a hair's breadth of the evidence to decide whether the man is suffering from diminished responsibility or not.
The Lord Chief Justice in his speech in another place also pointed out that one has the other completely illogical position that if the person's attempt to murder fails, perhaps due to a miracle of medical science, the judge, on a conviction for attempted murder, can carry out a determinate sentence, but if the murder succeeds he is completely fettered in the sentence which he can give.
As I understand it, the arguments which are put against the determinate sentence are twofold. The first one, which concerns me considerably, is that, for a deterrent effect, courts might be tempted to give sentences of extreme length. I believe that the power of the courts to give those sentences is a deterrent power which we should not remove.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: I think that I can anticipate the hon. Member's point of order. We can no longer argue matters which are not before us. The question of the determinate sentence can only be mentioned by the hon. Member in explaining his attitude to this particular Amendment, which he is either for or against.

Mr. Carlisle: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. I realise that I veered too far. In my description of this Amendment as a disappointing compromise, may I say that I believe it loses the best features of the


determinate sentence, while it retains the worst of them.
Is it not the fact that in this Amendment we are leaving the position that the court can give only the one fixed sentence of a life sentence? During the Third Reading of the Bill in another place the Lord Chief Justice referred to the fact that by removing the death penalty we would be taking away the farce of requiring judges to sentence to death those whom they knew would not be executed. With the greatest respect, it seems to me that the proposed Amendment is replacing one farce by another in that we will still have the position of judges sentencing to life imprisonment people whom they know full well will not spend a long period in prison, and whom they do not wish to see retained in prison for a long time.
One does not wish to lose the principle of the Bill and, as we are at this stage in the Session, I shall not vote against the Amendment, but it is with considerable regret that I find I have to support it because the original Amendment passed in another place was so much better.
It was said by the Home Secretary, and by many others, that the argument in favour of the Amendment is that since the person is sentenced to life imprisonment he can, although released, be recalled at any stage. Does the Home Secretary, and do the supporters of the Amendment, really feel that the power only to release on licence, and the power always to recall, should be retained for someone who has been convicted of a murder of the type of a mercy killing rather than for, say, a person convicted of the most brutal rape? Surely all the arguments in favour of the power to recall which are put forward as arguments for a licence apply with greater force to many woundings, many rapes, and many attempted rapes, than they do to many of the murders committed in circumstances which deserve sympathy. Under the Amendment, the Home Secretary will always have power to recall such people to prison, and the person concerned will know that at any stage of his life he is in danger of being recalled at the discretion of the Home Secretary.

Mr. Speaker: Before we go any further, may I say to colleagues who have

been through this Bill with me in many debates that the only matter that we can debate at present is the Amendment before us. I will not allow all the old debates to be brought into the discussion of this Amendment.

Sir John Hobson: I need not say very much because I find myself in complete agreement with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle). I would have thought that the Amendment had almost nothing to be said for it. The only thing that one can say is that nothing can be said against it. It does nothing but give statutory authority to a position that already exists at common law. It allows judges to open their mouths on topics and in circumstances in which they can and do already open them. Why we should go to all the trouble of putting that into statutory form passes my comprehension.
I concede—because I had an Amendment down to this effect—that if we made it obligatory for a judge to express an opinion there might be something in it, because the public would know his opinion in every case. But under the terms of the Amendment the Home Secretary has no more obligation to take the slightest notice of what a judge says than he would have if we did not pass the Amendment. No question as to whether there should be a mitigation arises, because any question of mitigation should be addressed to the Home Secretary, in whose sole power the real nature of the sentence remains under the Amendment as it stands. As to the question of appeal, again it is otiose, because the appeal should be to the Home Secretary, in whom, again, all power resides.
I could not ask anybody, in conscience, to vote against the Amendment. It does not do any harm, but it does not do the slightest good. In my view it amounts to a certain degree of otiose flummery, which may salve some consciences but which will not make any difference to the operation of the Bill.

Mr. R. T. Paget: For once I find myself in cordial agreement with the right hon. and learned ex-Attorney-General. I also find myself in considerable agreement with the out-of-order parts of the speech of the hon.


Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle). If I may trespass upon the rules of order for one sentence, I would point out that it has always struck me as the height of absurdity that a man should escape an indefinite sentence by establishing diminished responsibility, which is the very case in which I would have thought it was needed. I cannot go any further into that point at this stage.
Here we are providing a statutory right to a judge to do something which he already has a right to do, and in fact does—and which it would probably be desirable for him to do as little as possible. In a very general way, observations made in sentencing would, in the majority of cases, generally be better not made. One's experience at the Bar leads one to the conclusion that those judges who refrain from moralising during sentencing tend to be the judges whom we most respect.
The Home Secretary retains full discretion, and under the Amendment he will hear one representation among other representations, which he will consider in performing his duties under the Prison Act. The only danger—and this is why I dislike the Clause and agree to it only with great reluctance—is that not my right hon. and learned Friend but a weak Home Secretary might be tempted to prefer a worse opinion because it had been made publicly to a better one based on more material later on. It is the opinions later on, when one has had the experience of a man's conduct after prison treatment—after his having been in prison for perhaps ten years—which are the valuable ones, because they are formed on all the facts up to date instead of on some of the facts after an experience of a day or two during the trial.
4.15 p.m.
I very much prefer the suggestion made by my right hon. and learned Friend during an earlier debate, namely, that the judge should be consulted not at the time when he passes sentence but at the time when release is being considered and the judge can be informed of all the new facts, including the man's conduct and behaviour in prison, and what has happened to him there. That is the point at which the judge's opinion becomes relevant. It is not so relevant when it is expressed in the heat and often horror of a trial, and at a moment of very high emotion. It is

far better that the matter should be considered coolly in the light of all the facts later on.
I enter a small caveat: I hope that when Home Secretaries consider all the representations, and when they have to exercise their power under the Prison Act, they will give real weight to those representations and not give extra or unreasonable weight to the one covered by the Amendment, simply because it is statutory. Subject only to that, I reluctantly agree to a Clause which can do no good and may conceivably do some harm.

Sir Richard Glyn: I do not wish to detain the House for long. I very much agree with a large part of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle). He and I approach this problem from completely opposite poles, but our views on the Amendment are similar. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) has said that the Amendment would effect nothing. He said that it introduces nothing new. He said that the judges have always had the power to express an opinion on any question which is before them. Strictly, however, as the law stands at present and as it will stand, the question of the length of detention of a person convicted of capital murder is not before a judge. A judge's duty, on conviction for capital murder, has been and will be to pass a predetermined sentence on which he has no discretion whatever.
It is absolutely right that judges, in their wisdom, should at times express opinions. In the past these have been informal opinions, issued, no doubt, after some thought. They have never had any degree of authority other than that of an obiter dicta. The Amendment, which I could not oppose in the sense of voting against it but which I nonetheless feel to be distasteful, will give these opinions statutory authority. This is most unfortunate. The objection to the present position in respect of capital murder has always been to a predetermined fixed sentence. The emotional objection was that the sentence was of capital punishment, but the logical objection was that it was a fixed sentence, and that logical objection will remain in spite of the Amendment.
I think this will be most unfortunate. It is essential that in cases of this nature, the most serious cases that come before the courts, cases of what is now capital murder, justice should not only be done but be seen to be done. It will inevitably seem to everybody concerned, to the press and the public, that the statement which the judge will make as a result of this Amendment will be an important statement likely to have a definite effect on the length of imprisonment of the convicted man. If it does not, it is pointless to make it.
If the statement is to have a definite effect on the length of the sentence to be served, the convicted man should as my right hon. and learned Friend pointed out, have two rights neither of which is given in this Amendment—a right to have a plea in mitigation made on his behalf before the judge's opinion is given, and a right to appeal against the judges opinion afterwards. All the Amendment does is to give extra weight and, indeed, statutory authority to what in the past has been merely an obiter dicta of the judge made at a time when the judge will not have heard all the facts of the case. He will not have heard a plea in mitigation which could and, in my view, should have been put forward on behalf of the convicted person, and what he says will not be subject to any appeal.
If the Amendment is to have any effect, if it is to be regarded in any way by Home Secretaries at present and in the future, I say that it will seem to be a great injustice. I do not say that it will cause injustice, but it will seem to be a great injustice. I for one am very sorry indeed to see the Amendment written into the Bill. I am certain that not enough thought was given to alternative penalties at any state of the Bill. This has been the great weakness of it. Here again we have a position where the rights which a man convicted of attempted murder or any lesser offence would have, of having a plea in mitigation and an appeal, are denied to the man who has been convicted of the most serious offence of all, what is now capital murder. I am very unhappy to see this put into the Bill.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Frank Soskice): I think that the general sense of the House is that, while the Amendment really does

not make very much difference to the existing position, it ought on the whole to be accepted.

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: No.

Sir F. Soskice: The right hon. Gentleman dissents, but that is the sense of the speeches made so far. My advice to the House is that we certainly should accept the Amendment. I think that it has been rather written down. I believe that its effect is a little more than has been suggested by hon. Members who have spoken. I suppose the position really is that there is nothing to stop a judge making a comment after he has tried a murder case and when he is just about to pronounce sentence. If his only duty and task upon a conviction is to sentence the person convicted to life imprisonment, I can well think that many judges would say to themselves that any comment as to the appropriate period during which the prisoner should remain in prison would be neither within their province nor relevant. I should have thought that many judges, if there were no such provision as is now suggested, would prefer not to make any recommendation or comment whatever.
One has, after all, had the kind of situation that we are now considering in the case of verdicts of juries at inquests. There has been a good deal of controversy about riders, which sometimes give great pain, and it is often thought that it is not the province of a jury at a coroner's hearing to add a rider. I say nothing one way or the other about that, but I can well understand a judge, having heard the jury's verdict, saying to himself, "I have now only one duty left, and that is to impose the penalty which the law prescribes, namely, life imprisonment", and refraining from saying anything more on the basis that what he might say is not relevant to the duty that he then has to discharge and that in those circumstances it would not be appropriate for him to offer his own opinion as to the period of time during which the convicted person should remain in prison.
The Amendment would remove any hesitation of that sort which individual judges might feel. It is now plainly laid down by the Statute that if they feel moved to give expression to an opinion


as to the appropriate period during which the convicted person should remain in prison they ought to do so. They are not bound to do so under the terms of the Amendment, but it is made plain by the terms of the Statute that they should not in any sense consider themselves inhibited from expressing such an opinion, as I can well think they might otherwise feel themselves inhibited. The Amendment does that, and I should have thought, with very great respect to hon. Members who have spoken, it is not so devoid of effect as was suggested, for example, by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the former Attorney-General.
That being so, questions were asked as to what the result of the Amendment is, and three specific questions were put to me by the hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) on the basis that I perhaps have a special responsibility in the matter. I will seek to offer a reply which I think is appropriate.
The first question was whether counsel would be allowed to address the judge before he made a recommendation, I suppose if he indicated that he was minded to do so. My answer would be that that would be entirely a matter for the judge. I can well envisage a situation in which the jury has returned a verdict of guilty and the judge is about to proceed to the discharge of his duties in pronouncing the sentence and in delivering a recommendation. I should have thought that the normal procedure—I am not seeking in any way to fetter the practice or discretion of judges; it would be improper for me to do so: I am envisaging what I think would probably happen—would be that counsel for the convicted person would perhaps invite the judge to indicate whether he was minded to make a recommendation, and, if the judge indicated that he was, ask for permission to address the judge on the sort of recommendation that he should make.
I myself would have thought—again, I am speaking simply of what I imagine would happen—that in these circumstances almost every judge would say, "Yes, I am minded to make a recommendation," and he might go on to add, "I am minded to make a recommendation that this should be rather a longer sentence than might otherwise be thought appropriate." Counsel would no doubt then say, "May I address you on that?", and

I should have thought that the ordinary result would be that the Judge would invite counsel to address him and listen carefully to what counsel had to say before he made a recommendation. This is the way I imagine it would work.
This leaves the matter to the judge. This is one of the things he has to decide during the conduct of the trial on which he is engaged. It is his discretion, and it rests on his sense of what is fair, proper and just in the circumstances. We could, I am certain, have the assent of the whole House at once on this and leave it to our judges to arrive at what is a fair decision in a matter of that sort. That is my answer to the first question.
The second question was whether there was any appeal provided against a recommendation. As the House knows, my opinion does not bind the courts, and it would be a matter for the courts to decide whether the effect of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, read in conjunction with the Bill which, I imagine, will soon become law, is to provide such an appeal, but the opinion that I would offer to the House is that, quite clearly, there is no such appeal. It depends on Section 3 of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907. That Section lays down the matters against which a convicted person can appeal, and they are clearly limited in the first place to convictions and in the second place to sentences. A recommendation would fall within neither of these categories, and the opinion I offer is that, plainly, no right of appeal is given under the terms of the Amendment and existing statutory law.
4.30 p.m.
The third question which the hon. Member for Runcorn asked was how I envisaged that this would work. Would the learned judges be likely to make recommendations only in cases where, for example, there had been a mercy killing and where a particularly short period of imprisonment might be thought appropriate? Or would they reserve their recommendations to cases where there was some feature in the proceedings which pointed to the desirability of a very long period of imprisonment? I should have thought that, obviously, this must again be a matter for the discretion of the individual judge.
The way in which I imagine that it would work is that, in many cases, there would be nothing exceptional. Perhaps a case would involve a jealousy killing or something of the sort, for example, and the judge would be minded to make no recommendation because the circumstances and the gravity of the offence were perfectly plain upon the face of the record and could easily be collected from the evidence and the transcript. But there could be other cases in which a judge might see in the accused person some quality, some trait of character or something of the sort, which was not apparent upon the printed page but a matter of impression that he might gather from seeing the accused before him for several days, either in favour of a more mitigated view of the appropriate period of imprisonment or the reverse.
I would have thought that it was in that sort of case that a learned judge would think that he should make a recommendation. There might be some act, some piece of evidence, the significance of which was not particularly apparent or might not be apparent to someone reading the case years afterwards. It might particularly strike the judge in either direction. Surely, in such a case, the judge might think it appropriate to make a recommendation.
The right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) used language which I would not accept and I do not think that he would wish to insist upon it. He said that the Home Secretary need not take the slightest notice of what a learned judge says. Certainly, the Home Secretary's decision is by no means bound by what the judge says. I agree entirely with what was said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). A major consideration, as we have frequently argued, must be the reaction of the prisoner in prison—what his situation, condition and character is eight, ten or fifteen years after the offence. That is the principal consideration—or will be in almost every case. That is the thing to which the Home Secretary will principally have to have regard.
I would think a Home Secretary gravely deficient in the respect we all owe, and ought to owe, to the judges if he were to take no notice of what

the judges said. So long as I hold this office, it will not apply to me. I would, of course, give the most careful consideration to what a judge said, especially bearing in mind that he probably would not make a recommendation unless he felt impelled to do so by some feature of the case which struck him forcibly. I would certainly take that into account but it would be only one of the circumstances in weighing up what I thought was the gravity of the offence and the appropriate period of imprisonment. I must emphasise again that far the most important consideration after a long period in prisonment would be the condition, character and reaction of the individual to his confinement. But everything would be taken into account and I certainly would not dismiss lightly what any judge said. In these circumstances I hope that the House will think it right to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Thorneycroft: The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary has put the case, as far as it can be put, as fairly and sensibly as he can, but I do not think that he has the sense of the House in this matter. I think that the sense of the House is that this is a poor Amendment which does not add anything to the Bill; indeed, as the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) said, it does no good and may conceivably do some harm. The only argument in favour of it—and this is the sense of the House—is that, whatever one's view on the general principle of capital punishment, it would not be proper to lose the Bill now over some muddle concerning a Lords Amendment.
This is one of those compromises which when one listens to the arguments seem remarkably unhappy. Everyone is rather expressing the hope that the Home Secretary will not pay too much attention to an expession of opinion by a judge at the trial, when there may be no plea of mitigation and certainly no question of an appeal. This is the situation we have reached. We have to be guided by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's advice and, however we voted in our earlier proceedings of the Bill, none of us would want to lose it by sending it backwards and forwards to the House of Lords.
If the right hon. and learned Gentleman assures us that we shall lose the


Bill if we send it back to the Lords, it will be better to accept the Amendment; but are we really such prisoners of time in this matter? No one will take advantage of the situation. Quite a lot of Bills are going backwards and forwards in the next few days. The Amendment has not a friend in the House except for the Home Secretary.

Sir F. Soskice: I do not want the House to think that I am wildly enthusiastic about the Amendment. The consideration I put before the House was that it would serve a moderate and limited purpose of utility and no more.

Mr. Thorneycroft: Even the right hon. and learned Gentleman is now retreating a little. He may even fall in with the majority. I think that the majority view in the House is that this is a bad Amendment. It is a pity to put a bad Amendment into any Bill. I voted in a contrary sense to the hon. and learned Member for Northampton on the Bill, but I would not want to lose it on a point of this kind. After all, it concerns a great issue of a quite separate character from this Amendment. But if we are assured that the Bill will be lost if we reject the Amendment, I would not press the argument. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not give us that assurance, then it would be better to take the view that the Amendment will advantage no one nor improve the Bill, nor the law nor anything else, and send it back.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: Perhaps I might put a question about which I feel very much in the dark. How will the Amendment work in practice, first, in respect of the courts and, secondly and more important, in respect of his own office? It is fair to recall what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said earlier about how he himself sees the course of events. First, he said that he would always consult the trial judge if he were still available. Later, he said that he would require the trial judge to leave a note of his opinion in matters on which this Amendment touches. What difference will this Amendment make between what was to have been a private communication by the judge to the Home Secretary and what may be, if the judge so wishes, a public declaration in court? I understand that the advice which the right hon. and learned Gentleman makes

clear he desires to have will be the private communication.
Where I am still in the dark is about the precise difference between the private communication to the Home Secretary and the public declaration in court on occasions. What merit lies in a public declaration when the Home Secretary will in any case be adequately informed of the judge's view? Again, what action the Home Secretary may take upon that declaration in court or private communication from the judge must, of course, remain private in both cases. He will not indicate either the time of release or the reasons for the release, whether before or later than the court expects. Therefore, by this Amendment we are to have a public declaration by the court of a recommended sentence, but we shall have a private termination of that sentence by the Home Secretary without anyone being the wiser.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Obviously, it would be wrong to anticipate the next Amendment, but the right hon. Gentleman will not have overlooked the fact that this public declaration, which is to be made at the moment of sentencing, falls to be considered by the Home Secretary only years after it is made.

Mr. Deedes: Yes, that may be so. What I am trying to establish is precisely what significance it has over and above the private communication which I would have thought on occasion might have been very much more revealing and comprehensive than what the learned judge would be prepared to say in court. What is the precise significance in the difference between one and the other? If the House adds the weight of the Amendment to the Bill, how does the Home Secretary see the distinction working in practice?

Mr. Raphael Tuck: I must declare myself in general agreement with the opinions which have been expressed by the hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle), the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has given his idea of what will happen if counsel asks a judge whether he is minded to indicate his ideal of a minimum sentence. If the judge says,


"Yes", counsel will ask whether he may address the judge. However, it must be emphasised that the judge may or may not consent to counsel's addressing him and that counsel does not have the right to address him. That right he should have. He has the right to address the judge if the crime happens to be aggravated robbery with violence. When it is perhaps a woman who has killed her child in an agony of mind because the child is an imbecile, counsel does not have that right. I shall probably have the whole House on my head in saying that I would like counsel for the defence and counsel for the prosecution in every case to have the right to address the court on sentence, as is done in some foreign countries. However, that is by the way.
The Home Secretary has said that he would always pay attention and never not take notice of what the judge said. My right hon. and learned Friend has always been a model of sweet reasonableness, but he will not always be the Home Secretary, and the Home Secretary in office at the time might not be a model of sweet reasonableness. He might be a perfect hog—spelt with one "g".
In the circumstances, as we want to get the Bill through and may therefore be allowing through Amendments of which we do not entirely approve, once the Bill has been passed, will my right hon. and learned Friend consider introducing at some time in the not too distant future a Law Reform Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Amendment Bill?

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Henry Brooke: The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) knows that I am a supporter of the Bill and I would be as reluctant as he to see it fall, but I cannot support his Motion that the House should agree with the Lords in this Amendment. The Amendment has been profoundly criticised from all quarters of the House. I think that everyone was impressed by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle). One is left with the impression that the Amendment has no friends in the House, although the Home Secretary did his loyal best to persuade us to accept it.
There is no great evidence that it has many friends in another place. It is perfectly obvious from a reading of the proceedings there that the Amendment was not the initial idea of any noble Lord, but a compromise which was found acceptable after the other place, against the advice of the Government, had carried an Amendment which embodied the Lord Chief Justice's original views.
In the light of this further consideration, I cannot see that anybody here or in another place can seriously argue either that the Bill will be improved by the addition of these words, or that the Bill should be allowed to fall because these words are not kept in it. The additional sub-paragraph will make very little practical difference, and what difference there is will be to the bad rather than to the good.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) asked what merit there would be in this suggested procedure. I cannot tell him what merit there will be, but I can tell him what difference it will make. It will make the practical difference that when a man in prison has completed the minimum term of years which the trial judge declared at his trial, there will be tremendous pressure by all the prisoner's friends on the Home Secretary to release him at that date. Indeed, the term of years declared by the judge, believing himself to be declaring a minimum, will be in danger of having the effect of becoming a maximum. Although I am sure that Home Secretaries will be strong enough to resist pressure of that kind if they think that it is ill-judged, it will add one more great and unnecessary difficulty to what is already a very difficult task which Home Secretaries have to perform in deciding what is the right date at which a prisoner sentenced to life imprisonment should be released on licence.
In all the circumstances, I hope that the House will decide that these words do not improve the Bill, and that we can go forward and disagree with the Lords without serious fear that that will jeopardise the fate of the Bill in this Session.

Mr. C. M. Woodhouse: I will not take up the time of the House, because all of the arguments which I wished to advance against the Amendment have already been put by other


hon. Members, beginning with the hon. Member who sponsored the Amendment. I have one question to put to the Home Secretary which follows directly on the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Brooke), the former Home Secretary.
It is my understanding that a Minister is liable to be questioned in the House on any matters about which a statutory duty is laid upon him. It therefore appears that one of the effects of the Amendment would be that in future the Home Secretary might be exposed to questions which he had never had to answer before in exactly the circumstances which my right hon. Friend envisaged, or in the converse circumstances, or in any circumstances in which the Home Secretary departed by even a few weeks or months from- the recommendation of the trial judge. I would be glad if the Home Secretary would tell the House whether that is his understanding of the matter. If it is, is not this a serious and somewhat sinister innovation?

Sir F. Soskice: The Home Secretary has always been open to question about his recommendation of the exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy in abbreviating a sentence or in relation to the exercise of his discretion under Section 27. It has always been recognised that there was an exception to that principle when the death sentence was involved. That was obviously justifiable as an exception, without our having to argue the obvious grounds for it. I do not think that the insertion of this provision about a recommendation would expose the Home Secretary to any greater liability to questioning. But if it does, then why not? I do not think that it does the Home Secretary any harm. I do not say that he enjoys it, but it does not do him any harm to be questioned.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Brooke) felt that the House should not accept this Amendment. He put forward the argument that one would get a kind of pressure group on the Home Secretary, saying that he must not exceed the amount of the recommended period, or that he must let the prisoner out in advance. I thought that he supplied his own answer to that argument. It would be a weak-minded Home Secretary who could not resist pressures of that sort. He has to make

up his mind. This is described only as a recommendation, no more. It is simply a record of the views which the judge may have taken, many years before. The Home Secretary has to make up his mind, and whilst there is always pressure by relatives and others asking for the release of persons in custody—I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman had many such representations—other factors have to be considered. During the year that I have held the office, I have had representations from people saying that their friends, relatives, or their husband have been in prison for X years, and is it not time they were released.
Naturally one reads representations of this sort, but it is the plain duty of the Home Secretary to make up his mind about them, and not allow himself to be improperly influenced. That is the complete answer to what the right hon. Gentleman said. Of course there will be pressures, and there always have been pressures.

Mr. Brooke: There is a new factor here.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman must ask the leave of the House if he wishes to speak again.

Mr. Brooke: With the leave of the House, I should like to put this to the Home Secretary. There will be, if these words are embodied in the Bill, a new factor, and that is that people most interested in a particular man's case will have been given reason to think in their own minds that he is likely to be released at about a certain date. It may be a wrong interpretation by them upon the judge's words, but the fact that the judge has said that a man should stay in prison for at least 10 years will be taken by those who are concerned with his case as an indication that, in the judge's view, he should be let out after 10 years. That misinterpretation, which will be quite unavoidable, will further complicate what is already a very hard task for the Home Secretary.

Sir F. Soskice: I hope that I was right in treating that as an intervention, and not a new speech on the termination of my own speech, because there were certain other questions asked by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) which I have not yet answered


and I have not yet finished what I wanted to say.
There is a new element here. The learned judge is invited in a sense, to make a recommendation. In the course of this debate we have said that there is a kind of convention that a murderer, under existing practice, is let out after nine years. In fact there is no such convention. There is nothing of the sort, but I should have thought that a number of people think that there is. They think that a person who has been in prison for nine years is almost entitled to be let out and I am sure that must have been the experience of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hampstead. That situation is already present in that context. But I think that any Home Secretary—and I do not say that I am a particularly resplendent example—any Home Secretary worth the office for five minutes must be able to make up his mind whether he agrees with the judge's recommendation, as he has to make up his mind whether he thinks that nine years is an appropriate period against a general context of public expectation that a man will be let out after nine years. It is up to to him. That is what he is there for.
It may make it very difficult for him, but he has to face it and so I say respectfully to the right hon. Gentleman that I do not think that should be a factor which should weigh in the balance. It is a new situation in a sense when, as has been pointed out by those who feel that this Amendment has no effect, a judge can make a recommendation now, although, as I sought to argue, a number of judges might feel inhibited from so doing. It is not, however, such a new situation as all that. It may produce the result in the coming years that, whereas without this provision some judges may think it right to make a recommendation, with this Amendment rather more judges might think it right to make a recommendation. That is the only difference the Amendment makes, and that is a difference which, to repeat the language I used to the right hon. Gentleman, produces a result of some limited utility. I do not think it is of very great utility, but certainly it is of limited utility, and as the present holder of this office, I certainly would always value an expression of opinion.
No one is infallible, and everyone can derive help from an expression of opinion, particularly by the learned judges who have tried a case, although the preponderating consideration is the situation 8, 9, 10 or 15 years after the trial has taken place. That is the thing which must influence the Home Secretary's mind. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashford asked what is going to be the position with regard to the private intimations which now, as a matter of practice, are received. I should have thought that one difference was one which can be said to militate in favour of this change. As it is, the learned judge very kindly, if he thinks it appropriate, sends me an intimation of any special views which he has formed. The result of this Amendment will be that when he has formed such an impression, it will be given in open court. It will have been the subject of argument by counsel, so that I would at least have the advantage of knowing that I had the learned judge's view and that the recommendation will be made after counsel's arguments have been heard. Counsel will have said, "Do not make a recommendation here, or if you do make a recommendation, make it one for a comparatively brief period." So there will be a balance of considerations.

Mr. Paget: That is not a real position. Counsel has been briefed that the man did not do it at all. That is what the fight has been about, and then at the last moment, because there is a possibility that the judge may make a recommendation, it is said that there should be mitigation. There is no opportunity to examine the thing and look at all the factors and get a brief on it.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: On a point of order. I hesitate to interrupt, but I am wondering how far it might be in order to continue this very interesting, but rather academic speculation, as to what a Home Secretary is likely to do. The only question before the House is whether the House is prepared to accept the Amendment of another place or not.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It seems to me that it is entirely relevant to the Amendment.

Sir F. Soskice: May I conclude by saying that there will be the advantage that


one will get a balanced consideration, from counsel on the one side, and the judge on the other. With very great respect, I do not agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). The jury will already have rendered its verdict. The man will have been found guilty, and when counsel addresses the judge, the considerations which he will put before him in inviting a recommendation, for a shortish period, will be any considerations that seem to point to some ameliorating situations in the nature of the offence, or the character of the convicted person.
5.0 p.m.
The right hon. Gentleman asked if we would lose this Bill if we did not agree to this Amendment. I do not know what the reaction to a refusal by this House to accept the Amendment might be in another place. I cannot prophesy. What I do know, however, and what I think the whole House knows, is that this Amendment is the result of a great deal of heart searching. There has been a great deal of anxiety about various aspect of the Bill in this House and in another place. It would be a great pity, when the Amendment does not make all that difference—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It makes some difference and I should have thought that, so far as it goes, it was not without use. The Amendment is the result of thinking in another place. This is the decision which the other House has taken. If we do not accept it, I do not know whether the other place will accept it.
I would say to the right hon. Gentleman, "Let us accept the Amendment". Putting the worst face on it, it does not do any harm. I think that it does some good. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman does not feel kindly about my argument. But if we do not accept it and it goes back to another place, their Lordships may refuse to agree with us. Who knows what the Bill's future will then be? I greatly hope that the House will say that, while we have reservations about the Amendment we feel able to accept it, and that is certainly the advice which I offer.

Mr. Thorneycroft: By leave of the House, I should like to speak again. The Home Secretary said that the

Amendment does not do much harm. I do not think that that is a very good way of commending to the House of Commons an Amendment on a serious and important Bill. There is a limit to the amount of intellectual sludge which should be introduced into legislation. It is clear that both sides of the House think that this is a pretty miserable Amendment which probably will do some harm and certainly will not do any good. In these circumstances, there is only one point left, and that is whether we shall lose the Bill if we send the matter back to the House of Lords. If that were likely to happen, I think that we should accept the Amendment. It would frustrate the will of Parliament if we did anything else.
But I do not believe that that is the position. The Amendment would go back to another place. If their Lordships sent it back to us again and we were up against it for time, my advice would be that we should accept it. But we are not in that position. There is the opportunity for good sense to prevail. The discussion will be read and known in all the appropriate quarters. If the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) would withdraw his proposal, I think that this Amendment could go back to the other place. We shall not lose the Bill as a result of that, and I do not think that anybody would wish to take advantage of the situation; it would be entirely wrong to do so. I make my position public about that. There is plenty of time this Session for the other place to consider the situation again, and then we can consider the matter when it comes back here. But I believe that we shall see no more of the Amendment if it is negatived.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I listened with great interest and some alarm to the second speech of the right hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft). I understood him to say in his first speech that it would be better not to oppose the Amendment. He is now saying that perhaps it would be tolerable to reject it because it would then go back to the other place and then return here.
Everybody who has spoken has said—and I quote the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington


(Sir J. Hobson), the former Attorney-General—that this Amendment was introduced in the Lords partially to meet objections raised to the Bill, not by its sponsors but by its opponents, and that it did no particular good and no particular harm. I think that that is the opinion of practically everybody who has spoken. It would be a great mistake and a great pity to waste the time of either House any further on a question which nobody believes is of vital importance, which nobody believes changes the law in the slightest degree and which nobody believes has any great effect one way or the other. To have the matter bandied about between the two Houses in the last two or three days of a Session seems to me, with all respect to everybody, a totally absurd proposition.

Mr. Ian Percival: I cannot let go uncontroverted the proposition that this is a matter of no importance. It is a matter of importance, and there is one aspect which I regard as important to which reference has not been made.
There are only two honourable courses in a matter like this; the Amendment must either be agreed to in the spirit in which it was proposed and with the intention of giving to it the effect which was intended when it was introduced in another place, or it must be rejected. It may be as well for this House to remind itself that when the Lord Chief Justice introduced the Amendment, in place of a much stronger Amendment, he said, indicating the purpose of the Amendment:
… it preserves the right, for which I have been striving so long, of the trial judge to mark the gravity of the offence, the revulsion of public feeling, in a proper case by giving what appears to be a very long sentence, which it is hoped will deter others and afford some protection to the police, in particular".[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 5th August, 1965; Vol. 269, c. 419.]
Those tonight who say that we should agree with this are not saying that we should agree with it because it does any of those things. They are saying that we should agree with it because it does nothing. That does not seem to me a proper course for this House to take.
If effect is to be given to the Amendment in the spirit in which it was proposed by the Lord Chief Justice and apparently accepted by the Lord Chan

cellor, we must say that it is to be regarded as an important provision—the reason why a public declaration is to be made by the judge instead of a private recommendation is that very special significance is to be given to that in future by Home Secretaries. How can the declaration possibly stand as a mark of the revulsion of society, as a deterrent, or as any protection for the police or anybody else if it goes out from this House that this Amendment does not mean anything, does not make any difference and does not alter the Home Secretary's position in any way?
If it is to be a declaration of importance, the other questions to which I referred in Committee in another context, and to which my hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) referred this afternoon, are of much more importance than has been accepted by some in this debate, because if the judge's declaration is to be regarded as important both by the public and the Home Secretary it is vital that the accused person, through his counsel or by himself if he is not represented—and it is unthinkable that in a murder case he would not be represented—shall have the right, under a laid down procedure, to make his plea in mitigation and to get together all the information necessary for him to make that plea. If the judge's recommendation is to be regarded as of importance, as it must be if the Amendment is to fulfil the purpose for which is was introduced in another place, then, like the recommendation for deportation, it must be subject to the right of appeal.
All these matters are brushed aside by those who say here today that we should agree with the Amendment. What does the argument for agreeing with the Amendment amount to? It amounts to saying, "Let us ignore the purpose for which the Lord Chief Justice introduced the Amendment in place of another Amendment which had a much more positive effect. Let us ignore the fact that it was accepted by both sides in another place on the basis on which it was advanced by the Lord Chief Justice, and, for convenience, let us let it go because it does not make any difference".
I suggest that that is not a proper or honourable course for the House to take. The right course can be taken without any fear of the Bill being lost, and I


echo the sentiments of my right hon. and hon. Friends who have just said that. Many of us have opposed the Bill in principle as hard as we could, but that is now finished. No one has any desire to engage now in any steps which would mean the losing of the Bill. However, I agree with my right hon. and hon. Friends,—and no one has been able to say to the contrary—that this can be put right without any danger of losing the Bill. And I do ask the House to reconsider whether it can be right to accept the Amendment in an entirely different spirit from that in which it was proposed and accepted in the other place, to accept it with what seems to me the ultimate hypocrisy, the intention of so to work it as to give it no meaning or effect at all.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause A.—(RELEASE ON LICENCE OF THOSE SENTENCED FOR MURDER.)

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 14, at end insert new Clause A:
'A'—No person convicted of murder shall be released by the Secretary of State on licence under section 27 of the Prison Act 1952 or section 21 of the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1952 unless the Secretary of State has prior to such release consulted the Lord Chief Justice of England or the Lord Justice General as the case may be together with the trial judge if available.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Before advancing a reason for it, I would remind the House with great respect that neither the Amendment which we have just accepted nor the one that we are about to discuss was made in the Bill at the instance or with the support of the sponsors. Both of them were put down in a genuine and sincere attempt in another place to make a concession to a point of view that had been widely expressed in the House of Commons during the Committee stage and which had been equally widely expressed in the House of Lords and on behalf of some of the judges, at any rate. I hope that no one will take it as an unreasonable or intentional criticism of anyone if I say that I would have hoped that the Amendments might have been treated here with just a little more warmth and a little more recognition of the attempt to satisfy them than has been shown by those in whose interests they were made.
5.15 p.m.
The Amendment that we are now discussing is a further and perhaps more effective method of meeting that point of view than the Amendment that we have just accepted. It deals with a position not at the time of trial nor at the moment of sentence, when the question of release must in any case be a distant and remote one. It deals with what is to happen when the Home Secretary feels that perhaps the time has arrived when he ought to consider whether to release upon licence.
What the Amendment provides is that the Home Secretary shall do two things which are within what he has stated earlier in the Commons to be his intention, in any case, even if it had not been made statutory. That is to consult the Lord Chief Justice and, if he is still available, the trial judge. If the trial judge is still available and if he had availed himself at the time of the right, which he has under the Amendment which we have just accepted, to express his opinion as to the length of sentence, the new Clause will give him the opportunity of reviewing his own earlier declaration in the light of subsequent events.
In this connection, the subsequent events are at least as important as those which prompted the declaration in the first place. It does not require, and it is right that it should not, that the Home Secretary's decision should necessarily be governed by the advice he receives, but it places upon him a statutory obligation to make certain that the judiciary is associated with the effective length of the sentence. That is precisely what so many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen among the opponents of the Bill fought for so hard, so manfully, so gallantly and for so long and repeatedly throughout our own stages of the Bill. It may be that they have not got as much as they would have liked, but it was as much as another place would take.
We, as the sponsors of the Bill here, are content to accept it. I hope that, without troubling very much about it, the House might feel that we should graciously accept the Amendment that has been made. It does not in any way alter the executive or administrative character of the final Act, but it ensures that at the positive stage, when it becomes really important, judicial opinion is taken into account, together with all other relevant


opinion, on whether at that moment release on licence should be effected. In spite of all the interests in the matter, it does not seem to me that it is really of any value to pursue discussion on the question very much further.

Sir J. Hobson: I am sure that all those who were associated with me in the earlier stages of the Bill, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) has said, will be glad to find that the new Clause at any rate goes some way to meet our idea that the judiciary should have a part in the final decision which the Home Secretary will always have of determining the actual length of sentence that a man will serve in prison and should take a part in the decision as to when he should be released.
I am bound to say that it does not go anything like as far as we should have liked, and, the more I think about it, the more important it becomes that in murder cases and all other cases there should be some form of advisory body or parole body to assist the Home Secretary in considering the problems which arise about allowing a man to be released from prison. Not only his own individual problem but the whole problem of the deterrent effect of sentences within the community has to be weighed in the balance.
Having said that, I certainly do not wish to detain the House in any way on the Amendment, because I do not recommend any of my hon. or right hon. Friends to oppose it. It goes some way towards associating the judiciary in the final decision and gives the Home Secretary the benefit of consultations with the Lord Chief Justice, while leaving quite open what is to be the nature of those consultations.
I ask the Home Secretary if he will be good enough to say how he envisages this machinery working. It could work and the Statute could be complied with if the Home Secretary wrote to the Lord Chief Justice: "I am proposing shortly to release John Bloggs who was sentenced fifteen years ago at Winchester Assizes by Mr. Justice Scrogg, who is now half dead or half demented, or both, and cannot be consulted". What is the Lord Chief Justice to do? He has no information about what has happened in the

intervening fifteen years. He would be given no information as to how the prisoner had progressed, nor any circumstances about the background of the prisoner, and yet he would have been consulted. Or is the Lord Chief Justice to be given the whole of the prison reports and the medical reports and the reports on the home background and life history of the accused man and asked to give his advice to the Home Secretary on that basis? In my view either would be a consultation, and it would be useful to the House to know how the Home Secretary envisages that this consultation would take place.
Would the Lord Chief Justice be consulted only about the aspect of the trial as it took place and the matters which affect the general administration of the law, and would he be able only to answer that in his view sentences are not being sufficiently deterrent in the case of many murders and that he would prefer to see people kept in for longer periods? Or will he be able to look at the whole of the case of the individual and balance the public problems against the individual problems and in the ultimate analysis, in the Home Secretary's very arduous obligation of deciding whether to release anybody under his statutory powers, confront him with his views?
I am glad that the Lord Chief Justice is to be consulted but I should be grateful if the Home Secretary would regard this as an appropriate moment to state how he envisages the extent and nature of the consultation which will take place.

Sir Kenneth Piekthorn: I wish to put a purely verbal question, but perhaps it covers a certain ambiguity, and, if so, perhaps it should be cleared. I do not claim any qualifications for putting such a point, being neither a lawyer nor a draftsman.
The Clause reads that
No person convicted of murder shall be released … on licence … unless the Secretary of State has … consulted the Lord Chief Justice of England or the Lord Justice General as the case may be together with the trial judge …".
The question which I wish to put to the Home Secretary is, what does "together" mean? Is it intended to mean that the two are to be consulted


together, or is it intended to mean, as, with proper respect to the draftsmen, I do not think it should, "as well as"? There is possibly some slight importance here.
I might usefully perhaps speak without the attention of the sponsor of the Bill, but I can hardly usefully complete the very few words which I got up to say if he occupies the attention of the Home Secretary. What I was trying to ask the Home Secretary—and I must now repeat it—is whether the words as drafted on the Paper mean that the consultation with the Lord Chief Justice and the trial judge is to be consultation of the two together or whether they mean that at some time, whether together or separately, if it is physically possible he has to consult each of them or both of them.

Sir F. Soskice: I would answer the last question by saying that I would construe the word "together" as being simply "as well as". That is the meaning which I would put upon it.
I turn to the question asked by the former Attorney-General, the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson). I do not think that I can lay down in advance any precise method of approach. If one considers a Lord Chief Justice who cannot remember who John Bloggs was, to take the right hon. and learned Gentleman's example, who does not remember him or the circumstances of the conviction or anything about it, he would probably ask for some information about it. I imagine that that is what would happen, but one cannot conduct these consultations on such a very formal and precise basis. Naturally the Lord Chief Justice would wish to put himself in a position to give sensible advice.
I do not think that I have ever had a conversation with the present Lord Chief Justice without finding it useful and helpful to me. I have no doubt that that would be the kind of general procedure followed in the future. If he wanted to see documents, presumably he would ask for them, and I have not the slightest doubt that they would be furnished to him. Consultation must be useful consultation and not merely consultation in an empty form. I do not think that the

difficulty will arise which the right hon. and learned Gentleman envisaged.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3.—(DURATION.)

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 31, at end insert:
Provided that this Act shall continue to have effect in relation to any murder not shown to have been committed after the expiration of this Act, and for this purpose a murder shall be taken to be committed at the time of the act which causes the death.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I call the attention of the House to the fact that this is an Amendment of a very different kind in a sense that it is a hypothetical Amendment—and a hypothetical Amendment in a double sense. It can come into effect only if one hypothesis supervenes upon another hypothesis.
The House will recall that on the proposition of the right hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Brooke) a Clause was added to the Bill—which has not been questioned in another place—by which this Bill would come to an end in five years' time unless by Resolution of both Houses it were continued. Moreover, the new Clause also provided that if the Bill came to an end, then the Homicide Act which this Bill repeals should again become the law of the land without Parliament having a word to say or the opportunity of saying anything whatever about it.
I always thought that this was a rather astonishing constitutional proposition to be accepted by both Houses of Parliament, and I still think so. However, I have been assured in all sorts of responsible quarters that this first hypothesis—namely, that the Homicide Act should be re-enacted in silence—will in practice not happen, and I am content, with certain reservations and doubts, to accept this assurance. This is why I took no further step about the matter.
But supposing all these assurances turn out to be mistaken and supposing the hypothesis comes to pass that the Homicide Act is re-enacted, say, some time in 1970. There then comes a further hypothesis, which is that a man commits a murder during the liftetime of the present Act but comes to be tried and sentenced


after the Homicide Act has automatically and in silence been re-enacted. What the Amendment is designed to ensure is that in such a highly unlikely hypothetical event the man shall be punished in accordance with the present Act and not in accordance with the Homicide Act which the present Act is designed to repeal.
I do not believe that this contemplated event is ever likely to occur, but I suppose that no hon. Member has any doubt that if it occurred then in those circumstances this Act should govern the sentence and not the Act which we are now repealing.

Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — HONOURABLE LADY HYLTONFOSTER'S ANNUITY BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

5.30 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Niall MacDermot): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
When the House yesterday paid its tributes to our late Speaker all hon. Members expressed not only their condolences to his widow, Lady Hylton-Foster, but also their appreciation for the contribution which she had made in her own right to the success of his Speakership. As my right hon. Friend the First Secretary said yesterday, the House today has an opportunity to show that appreciation in a more practical way.
In one sense the Bill is without precedent, because this is the first occasion on which the House has been asked to provide for a pension for the widow of a Speaker who has died in office. Indeed, I think that it is only the second occasion on which the House has made provision for the widow of a Speaker at all. The last occasion of a Speaker dying in office was Speaker Fitzroy in 1943, and at that time it was not the practice generally to grant pensions to the widows of public servants.
Since the war, however, there has been a change of practice, and that was reflected in the fact that at the time of Speaker Morrison's retirement the House, in Mr. Speaker Morrison's Retirement

Act, 1959, provided for a pension for Lady Dunrossil in the event of her husband's death, an event which, sadly, materialised far earlier than any of us had expected. On that occasion hon. Members expressed the hope in the debates that this innovation would serve as a precedent for the future.
There is little I want to say by way of explanation in moving the Second Reading of a Bill which, I hope and believe, will commend itself to the whole House. Clause 1 provides for the payment of a pension of £1,667 per year as from 3rd September last, that being the day after the death of the late Speaker. I should, perhaps, say something in explanation of the amount and how it was arrived at. On the occasion of Mr. Speaker Morrison's Retirement Act in 1959 Parliament decided to follow the normal practice in the public service of making a widow's pension one-third of her husband's. That practice was, equally, followed by the House recently in making provision for widows of Prime Ministers. That was done in Section 16 of the Ministerial Salaries and Members' Pensions Act, 1965, and there is also similar provision for the widows of Lord Chancellors in the Administration of Justice (Pensions) Act, 1950.
The Bill therefore proposes to follow those precedents and to award to Lady Hylton-Foster one-third of the sum which it is thought the House would have wished to have conferred, in happier circumstances, on Sir Harry Hylton-Foster himself. The House will recall that, following the Lawrence Committee's Report, it was decided to abate by one half the recommended increases in the salaries for Ministers and for the Speaker and, equally, to abate by one-half the increases in pensions recommended by the Lawrence Committee for both the Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor. The question of the Speaker's pension was left over, in accordance with tradition, to be dealt with by an individual Act of Parliament at the time of his retirement.
I suggest that if we had now been making provision for a pension for the late Speaker himself there is little doubt that, in these circumstances, the House would have followed those precedents and provided for a pension of £5,000 per year—that is, an increase of £1,000 over the previous pension of £4,000, rather than


an increase of the £2,000 recommended by the Lawrence Committee. Accordingly, the Bill now proposes a pension of one-third of £5,000; namely, £1,667.
Clause 1(2) deals with the eventuality of remarriage and contains similar provisions to those affecting widows of hon. Members under the Members' Pension Scheme, provisions which have also been made to apply to the widows of Prime Ministers. Indeed, there are similar, though slightly more limited, provisions for the widows of Lord Chancellors. Once again, in this matter we are following, as best we can, the precedents before us.
I do not think that there is anything further I need say by way of explanation of the Bill. It is not for me, at this time, to seek to pay further tribute to Lady Hylton-Foster, which was done eloquently by hon. Members of both sides of the House yesterday. Without further ado, I commend the Bill to the House.

5.36 p.m.

Mr. William Clark: This is a short and simple Bill and, as such, it will commend itself to the House. As the Financial Secretary said, hon. Members in all parts of the House regret the surrounding circumstances which have necessitated the introduction of the Measure.
As the hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out, the Bill provides a pension for Lady Hylton-Foster and it will be a small measure of some help to her. No hon. Member will deny this. On behalf of my hon. and right hon. Friends, I assure the Financial Secretary that we will co-operate to the fullest extent to see that the Bill goes through as expeditiously as possible.

5.37 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I do not wish to strike a discordant note in our proceedings and I, too, pay tribute to both our late Speaker and Lady Hylton-Foster. We all agree that she is a most charming and gracious lady. I would be the first to say that she should be in receipt of an annuity and reasonable pension.
It was my hope that at a later stage I might move an Amendment, but a little bird has whispered to me that that will not be possible. I must, unfortunately, say what I have to say at this stage.
In paying tribute to the late Speaker and Lady Hylton-Foster I reiterate the fact that a reasonable pension should, in my view, be paid to her. I am glad to note that, in part, what is proposed is tied up with the Members' Pension Scheme in so far as it would affect Lady Hylton-Foster upon her remarriage. There is no other reference to it in regard to the actual amount.
For the life of me I cannot understand why £32 per week can be said by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. William Clark) to be a small payment to Lady Hylton-Foster. I should have thought that £32 per week was quite a handsome token of our appreciation. As I say, I wish to pay tribute to our late Speaker and Lady Hylton-Foster, but I cannot understand why the eminent service which the late Speaker gave to the House should be regarded as any more eminent than that given by our late colleague who died almost at the same time—Mr. Norman Dodds. Indeed, Mr. Dodds gave much longer service to the House—just on 21 years. He had been an active hon. Member from the very beginning, right up until the last. That goes for when his party was in opposition and when it came to power. Mr. Dodds attended the House of Commons day in and day out. I understand that the late Speaker was here for seven or eight years, about four years of which he was Speaker.

Hon. Members: Fifteen years.

Mr. Lewis: Then 15 years, the last four or five of which he was Speaker. The whole time that Mr. Dodds was here he was an active hon. Member, when his party was in opposition and in government. His widow will receive £300 a year, to which Mr. Dodds contributed in part. Because Mr. Dodds unfortunately died a month earlier than he should have done, if I may put it that way, his widow loses £30 per year, because, in accordance with the Members' Pension Fund, Mr. Dodds had not then completed 12 months' service for her to gain the additional £30. The hon. Member for Nottingham, South may look dubious, but in regard to Lady Hylton-Foster I consider that about £1,600 per year should be reduced to an amount which is at least more reasonable compared with what is going on in the world today.
There are many men and women who have given eminent service to the country, perhaps of 40 years' standing. If, heaven forbid, one of them dropped down dead tomorrow, his wife would receive only £300 a year. My right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), who is not at present in the Chamber, is fast approaching 30 or 40 years' service in the House. If, unfortunately, anything were to happen to him, his widow would get £300.
I feel that a sum of £600 or £700 would be reasonable. I know that the widows of the many men who died in the last war will never see a pension of anything like that amount. The widows of many who have died in industry will never see anything like that sum. Many present hon. Members of this House have given 30 or 40 years' service to it, but their widows will never receive anywhere near that amount. I do not suggest that the late Speaker's widow should receive the same amount of £300 that Mrs. Norman Dodds will receive, but I do suggest that if Lady Hylton-Foster received twice that amount it would be adequate.
I had hoped that we would have been able in Committee to make some more reasonable proposals. When we know that the Economic Secretary and the Government are calling on the country and the workers to limit their wage demands, to go steady on wage increases, and the rest, to pay to this honourable, noble, gracious and charming lady, as I at once admit she is, the amount stated in the Bill, is too much.
I will not oppose the Bill, of course, because I am not against the principle of Lady Hylton-Foster receiving this sum—and I want to re-emphasise that what I say is in no way party political or spoken against the late Speaker or this honourable and noble Lady. Hon. Members will remember that I was equally opposed on this issue with regard to the Lord Chancellor and the judges. Every man and woman ought to receive a reasonable pension in accordance with the time and service they have given to their employer, State or private. Every widow should receive a reasonable pension from her husband's employer—State or private—and possibly from both a

State scheme and a private employer. But I cannot agree that any widow is entitled to expect to receive from the State a pension of £32 10s. 0d. per week.
If it were the case that this hon. Lady was in dire straits, that might be something we would have to look at, but it is not the case. When the late Speaker was alive he was doing his job—just as the present Speaker is doing his job—for which an adequate salary is paid. The late Speaker occupied that office for four or five years—I do not know offhand how long it was, but it was a relatively short time. For some 10 years before that he was a Member of the House, when he also carried on a profession outside—and others of us carry on in outside professions and businesses in order to earn a few £s extra to look after our homes and next of kin.
I hope that any future proposal of this kind will have some relationship to what is done for others in like positions. I do not want to stop this honourable and noble Lady getting this pension but I hope that when, as we will, we discuss the pensions of widows of those in other services, we shall not be told that we are asking for too much and that any increase should be only 3½ per cent. or 4 per cent. I hope that it will be borne in mind that if we can treat one lady in this matter others in a similar position ought to be treated similarly.

5.44 p.m.

Mr. MacDermot: I hope I may have your leave, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of the House if, in deference to the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis), I seek to say a little more about the amount contained in the Bill which he has criticised. My hon. Friend argued that the amount should bear some relationship to that paid to others in like position. I would only seek to convince him that that is precisely what the Bill does. As he himself says, when comparing this amount with the pension that the widow of a Member of this House would get, he is not suggesting that the sums should be the same in each case. Therefore, if we accept that, presumably the right approach to make is that which is made throughout the public service and, indeed, towards Members' widows themselves, which is to consider what


is the appropriate proportion of the husband's pension that should be given to the widow.
Throughout the public service—with the exception of Members of Parliament, if we are to be regarded as members of the public service, which is, perhaps, not the right term, but certainly throughout the public service properly speaking—the rule is that widows receive one-third of the pension which their husbands received. That is the rule we have applied here. Members of this House have applied to themselves a different rule. The rule that applies to Members' widows is that they receive, not one-third, but one-half of the Member's pension. That is in accordance with the recommendations of the Lawrence Committee, and no doubt is related to the fact that the pensions of Members are, perhaps, to be regarded as modest compared with the pensions that other people who have comparable responsibilities in the public service will enjoy. Certainly, when one approaches the matter on what I suggest is the only basis on which it can be approached—namely, what percentage this pension bears to the pension which the husband would have received had he survived—we have followed precisely the principle for which my hon. Friend argued, which is that it should bear a relationship to that of others in like position.
Whilst I have every sympathy with the feelings that move him, and with his concern for those who enjoy much more modest pensions and whom one would like to see better off, this does not alter the fact that this House must, I suggest, do what is right in this matter when considering the individual pension of an individual person. I hope that the House will accept that the principles on which we have acted are the right ones.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Ifor Davies.]

Further Proceeding postponed pursuant to the Order of the House this day.

Orders of the Day — HONOURABLE LADY HYLTONFOSTER'S ANNUITY [MONEY]

[Queen's Recommendation signified]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 88 (Money Committees).

[Sir SAMUEL STOREY in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to settle and secure an annuity upon Audrey Pellew Hylton-Foster, commonly known as the Honourable Lady Hylton-Foster, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of the Consolidated Fund to that lady of an annuity of one thousand six hundred and sixty-seven pounds to commence and take effect as from 3rd September 1965 and to continue during her life.—[Mr. MacDermot.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received forthwith.

Resolution reported accordingly, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — HONOURABLE LADY HYLTONFOSTER'S ANNUITY BILL

Considered in Committee, pursuant to the Order of the House this day; reported, without Amendment.

Motion made and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. MacDermot.]

5.50 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Having made my point, and not wishing to hold up proceedings, I wish to congratulate the Government and the Opposition on the expeditious manner in which the Bill has gone through all its stages in a matter of a few minutes. When we have other Bills of perhaps wider import and affecting more people who are not in such happy circumstances, I hope that those Bills will be dealt with as quickly.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — MILK (SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS)

5.52 p.m.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I gather that we are now to deal with the following Motion, which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard) and myself:
That the Milk (Special Designations) (Specified Areas) Order 1965, a draft of which was laid before this House on 8th July, be not made.
I understand that it is the custom, laid down by the previous Speaker, that the Minister has an obligation and duty to make available in the Vote Office all the necessary Acts to which a particular Order refers. This has not taken place on this occasion. I have gone to great trouble to find the parent legislation to which this Order refers and it has been impossible to find it. This is an extremely complex matter and I think hon. Members will find it very difficult to follow the debate on the Order unless we have some guidance and help from the Government in providing in the Vote Office documents to which the Order refers. It was ruled by your predecessor in the Chair that this should be so. I ask you to see that the Government shall so provide.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Samuel Storey): The hon. Member is quite correct. There is an obligation put on the Minister in charge to see that the documents, a reasonable number of copies of the documents, are in the Vote Office or, if some are out of print, whether they should be reprinted. That undoubtedly is the position.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Further to that point of order. Perhaps, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, you could give guidance to myself and to the House. The Minister has completely failed to satisfy this obligation, and it is only fair to say that hon. Members are placed in difficulty as a result. There are no copies of the 1955 Food and Drugs Act available and there is only one unamended copy of the Order. The regulations are not available in the Vote Office. May I seek your guidance as to how we are to proceed? It is extremely difficult to be coherent and constructive in discussion

of this important Order without having the necessary documents.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie): Perhaps I can help the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins). This is an Order placing on a particular district of the country the same conditions as apply to all other areas in the country and it has nothing to do with the detail of the Act mentioned. It is simply an Order placing an obligation on this particular area to provide clean milk. It may be that the hon. Member and his colleagues have some points to raise concerning the Act. I do not know, but, if that is so, I suggest that it would be out of order.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: It is absolutely monstrous for a Parliamentary Secretary to suggest that what an hon. Member might say would be out of order. It is entirely the prerogative of the Chair to say that. This Statutory Instrument refers specifically to certain Acts of Parliament, and, in particular, the 1955 Act. As I understand your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, there is an obligation on the Government to see that that document is available in the Vote Office for hon. Members. It is not so available. I seek your guidance as to how we should proceed in these circumstances.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am afraid I cannot help the hon. Member. This Ruling has been given and this obligation undertaken after consideration, but it is not for the Chair to enforce. The responsibility is on the Government and I am afraid I cannot help the hon. Member.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The Government have failed in their obligation which was clearly laid down in the Ruling. It is clearly for hon. Members to ask the Government to withdraw the Order and to bring it forward again when the necessary documents are available as they have made a further error in administration.

Mr. John Mackie: I should be perfectly prepared not to withdraw the Order but to give time within the 40 days—there are still plenty of days left—for the Opposition to put down this Motion again. It is not a Prayer but a Motion that the Order should not be made. I do not split hairs over this, but it is a Motion that the Order should not be made, not


a Prayer in the accepted sense of the word.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I now understand that the Parliamentary Secretary is giving a firm undertaking that in this Session the Government will give specific time for this Order to be prayed against. He is aware of the difficulties and the pitfalls. The Government know that such a debate might come on after half-past ten. If they are giving a firm assurance that time will be provided on a day when proper time for praying against the Order is available, I am happy to accede to the Government's assurance.

Mr. John Mackie: The Opposition will have to put the Motion down again. If that is done the only guarantee I can give is that, if possible, it will be given time. I do not know whether it is in order to mention this, but I have gone into the whole question dealt with by the Motion which has been put down for today. If the hon. Member for Cornwall, North thinks it important to have all the Acts concerned before him, I cannot understand why this Motion was put down. The Order is designed to give the people of one small area the same rights to have clean milk as people in the rest of the country. Why the Opposition should kick up a fuss on a point of procedure which is not so important, I cannot understand.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: This is impossible. I must ask for the help, guidance and protection of the Chair. I do not want to be pedantic, but the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has gone much wider than the matters I have raised. Of course, I accept it from him that the Order gives the protection of clean milk to certain people. It also places on others an obligation to spend money. These are the matters we wish to talk about. The Government have not provided the documents to enable there to be proper discussion of the Order.
With the permission of the Chair, I asked the Government if they would guarantee to provide us with time. I understood the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to say originally that they would. He is now withdrawing from that position and saying that the Government will see what they can do if we table the Motion again. This is wholly unsatisfactory. Hon. Members need the protection of the Chair when Ministers flagrantly fail to live

up to the obligation imposed by Mr. Speaker's predecessor that they must provide the necessary documents. When Ministers fail to do this, I hope that the Chair will protect hon. Members and that the Government will take the necessary and honourable action of assuring the House that time will be provided to discuss this matter when the documents are eventually made available.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that I can only say to the hon. Gentleman that there are two courses open to him—either that he should move his Motion and discuss it now even without the documents, or that he should not move it and should accept the assurance of the hon. Member in charge of the Order that he will arrange for time later and, I take it, will ensure that the documents are available.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Perhaps the Joint Parliamentary Secretary would like to answer the question I put to him, whether he will give this assurance.

Mr. John Mackie: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I am not the Leader of the House. I can only give the assurance that I will try to find out if my right hon. Friend can give time. I would suggest that the hon. Gentleman takes the advice of the Chair and carries on with the Motion.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: As I understand it. Mr. Deputy-Speaker, you advised that there were two courses open. It is not for the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to try to anticipate what course I should take. Your advice that was that I should take either of the two courses. I accept that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary is not the Leader of the House. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman sends for the Leader of the House or for the Patronage Secretary and gets his approval to giving an assurance. After all, we are not asking for very much. I am merely saying that we want praying time with the proper document at our disposal—the document being the Food and Drugs Act, 1955. Unless we have that, it is very difficult to continue with this. If we cannot get a guarantee of time from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, improperly helped as we are and without the necessary document we shall have to do the best we can and proceed with the Motion. I think


that the only honourable course is for the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to give this assurance. He seems unwilling to do so. I am sure that he knows full well that he is under an obligation to answer what I have said.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. George Willis): No.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: It cones ill for the Minister of State from a sedentary position to say "No". He must remember what he used to do on points of no substance when he was in Opposition. I believe he would be the first to admit that the point which I am raising with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and with the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, is of great substance. I hope that the Minister of State will not only stay in a sedentary position but keep quiet, too. I once more ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for an assurance.

6.4 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Howard: As it appears that we cannot get the assurance, I think I should proceed to move the Motion.
I beg to move,
That the Milk (Special Designations) (Specified Areas) Order 1965, a draft of which was laid before this House on 8th July, be not made.
I support everything my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) has said on the subject of the papers not being available. My object in moving the Motion is to find out the Government's intentions. This applies to the Isles of Scilly, which are in my constitutency and which are, as we all know, well known to the Prime Minister, who has a holiday home there. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary said that we are all trying to get clean milk. This is true.
My object in raising the matter tonight is to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Isles of Scilly are in a very special position. Ever since taxation was put upon them, unfortunately by our Government, it has always been the case with the Isles of Scilly of, "Heads you win, tails we lose". They do not get half the advantages and subsidies which are available to agriculture on the mainland. I know that they get certain assistance under horticultural schemes, but that is not covered by this Act and

I shall not mention it. They get fertiliser grants, but they get no calf subsidies.
I am sure that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, who I welcomed in the Isles of Scilly some time ago, knows as well as I do the very special problems which people in the islands face with regard to costs. As the hon. Gentleman knows, everything has to be imported to these islands over the sea for at least a distance of forty miles. The on-costs from the mainland for St. Mary's are about £2 a ton and for the off-islands they are perhaps another 10s. a ton, making £2 10s. to £3 extra. Therefore, everything they order from the mainland costs this much extra, but they do not get the advantages of subsidies.
I ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for an assurance that, if the Order is applied to the Isles of Scilly, they will get all the grants and subsidies available to the mainland. Will the winter export of milk be allowed? What will be the cost to the islanders? Somebody coming on an inspection may, in the course of trying to implement the Order, say that certain buildings or the holding generally is not up to standard and cannot be passed. If that happens, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary knows that the additional costs to the islanders concerned will be considerable, if they have to make up their services and buildings to the standard which applies on the mainland.
It may seem to be somewhat off the point, but when Mr. George Tomlinson was Minister of Education an Order was promulgated to the effect that when schools were built there had to be wonderful playgrounds made of asphalt. I took him to the Isles of Scilly and showed him some of the island schools. He agreed with me that the Order was nonsense as applied to the Isles of Scilly and was unnecessary because there were already wonderful natural playgrounds there.
I do not oppose the idea of getting clean milk and improving standards. Obviously, we all want the consumer and everybody concerned to have a better standard of milk. No one wants to see this brought about more than I do. However, it is a question of the additional costs. I have had years of experience of conducting a lone battle on behalf of these islands. They are the only ones


of their kind in England and I have not got anyone to support me. My experience has been that nice answers are always given but when it comes to the crunch it is always said, "You are a special case, because you are a long way away and therefore we cannot give you" whatever it may be.
This is why I move the Motion. I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary can give me an assurance that these islands, if they come under the Order, will not lose by having to pay enormous sums of money to be brought up to standard.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. John Mackie: May I first apologise for the slip-up in procedure of which the hon. Member for Cornwall, North made the best, and say that, although we slipped up, the point in the Order does not arise in the Act except in so far as the Order is made possible by the Act. The Order affects an area and not a particular issue within the Act, as the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard) has pointed out. I am obliged to the hon. Member for St. Ives in that, when I went to the Scilly Isles, he showed me round and introduced me to many people there. I was very interested in the area. Its remoteness is slightly exaggerated. I found it easy to get there.

Mr. Howard: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that as of yesterday there had been no helicopter flights to the Isles of Scilly for four days? I do not call that easy to get at.

Mr. Mackie: Let me put it that we got there very comfortably.

Mr. Howard: Yes, in the summer.

Mr. Mackie: Apart from that, I did not find it a remote area, in the sense that it seemed to me to have all the amenities one could wish to have. One pays no licence for a car and I could mention many other advantages which seem to cancel out the disadvantages. The hon. Member for St. Ives said that the area was in a special position and that it received no calf subsidies. The reason is that the people there do not rear any cattle which would qualify for calf subsidies. I do not want to go into detail as to why they do not rear calves and receive subsidies, but,

as the hon. Member knows, the Duchy of Cornwall, who are the landlords, do not allow cattle there. It is quite a ridiculous feudal attitude, but there it is. I am surprised at it, but that is the reason why these subsidies are not paid. It has nothing to do with this Order.
The hon. Member asked whether, if the Order were approved tonight, all the grants and subsidies available would be paid. They are all paid now. All grants and subsidies paid to other farmers go to farmers in the Isles of Scilly. The payments are mostly concerned with horticulture and the fact that milk is not sold through the Milk Marketing Board, which does not function there, means that there is no price control by the Board. The hon. Member will remember that I said to the farmers there at the time that they could charge more for their milk if they so wished, up to the maximum retail price allowed. They can therefore do that if there are any increased costs.

Mr. Howard: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not leave out the point which I made at the end of my speech. If a market inspector goes over there and says, "This, that and the other must be done", will they receive the appropriate grant for it? That is the simple question to which I should like to have a reply.

Mr. Mackie: I was coming to that. The Order was not made in any way hurriedly, and it applies only to St. Mary's and Tresco and not to any of the other outlying islands. Before the Order was made there was a complete survey of all the producers to find out whether there would be any extra cost on buildings or equipment if the Order was applied. Apart from the case of one person, the survey showed that little or no extra cost would be required. This does not mean that under any future regulations which may come along there will be no need for extra expenditure, but such a case would apply all over the country and I see no reason why those new regulations should not apply also to St. Mary's and Tresco.
Meanwhile, the survey showed that there was only this one person involved, and she was not too worried about the situation. All the bodies concerned were consulted—the Council of the Isles of Scilly, the Duchy of Cornwall, the County Council, the N.F.U., the Milk


Marketing Board, the Central Milk distributive Committee, the National Association of Creamery Proprietors and Wholesale Dairymen, the National Dairymen's Association, and so on.
The whole purpose of the Order is simply to give people who buy milk in these two areas the same protection as is given in other areas, which I am sure hon. Members must admit is necessary. If this protection is not necessary, then there must be something wrong with the Orders made by the previous Government. This is the last area to be tackled, so as to give everybody there protection in the buying of fresh milk.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Cornwall, North knows all the details of the four standards of milk and that he is conversant with the Act, a copy of which he could not find. The Order merely provides protection so that people can obtain clean milk, and hon. Members know the risk if dirty or contaminated milk were consumed, for example, in the schools. This is the reason for the Order and I therefore respectfully ask that the Motion be withdrawn so as to allow these constituents to have the advantages of these Regulations, in the same way as the rest of the country.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I accept the Parliamentary Secretary's apology for the further mistake in not providing the right document. Two mess-ups by the Government in one day make almost an all-time low, but I suppose that we shall have greater lows in the next few months. The hon. Gentleman has neither answered the main question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard), concerning the winter milk surplus, nor explained the purpose of the Order.
When I was in the hon. Gentleman's present position I, too, went round the Isles of Scilly and visited the islands of St. Mary's and Tresco. The hon. Gentleman said that the Order merely applies to the two islands the same provisions as apply to the rest of the United Kingdom in that consumers of milk will be ensured of clean milk, but what does this mean? The Order designates the two islands as specified areas but what does the expression "specified area" mean? The hon. Gentleman has

singularly failed to tell the House what it involves.
The hon. Gentleman said that I knew the provisions of the Food and Drugs Act, 1955, but I have only an unamended version and the hon. Gentleman knows that there is only one amended version available. Section 31 of the Act says that special designation shall be obligatory for the purposes of the sale of milk by retail for human consumption, and Section 35 describes what special designation regulations are. There is a whole mass of regulations which presumably must be complied with by retailers of milk. I suppose that this must be so, but once again the hon. Gentleman singularly failed to explain to the House what this would cost and what the implications of the regulations will be for milk producers. In a very nice way, he said that he and his Department had undertaken thorough investigations on the two islands to find out whether producers of milk would be put to any great expense, and he was glad to tell my hon. Friend that he thought that they would not be, save for one particular lady. But do people really understand what regulations will apply to them now that they are to be in a specified area subject to the designation of various kinds of milk? I very much doubt it. Do they really understand—do hon. Members understand—what all the regulations are? There are pages of them. Do they know which particular regulations will apply? I am not exactly sure myself.
The whole situation is most unsatisfactory. The hon. Gentleman has not given the right answer. One may wonder whether he himself understands what is involved. This is possible, though I am fairly certain that he does know and he was just being reticent because he did not want to expose the fact that, more than possibly, it will cost quite a lot of money.
The Parliamentary Secretary is fully aware that on these two islands at present milk production caters for the large number of visitors who come in the summer and there is, therefore, quite a surplus of milk in the winter which has hitherto come over to the mainland and been disposed of at a very low price. It has not been possible for a very great deal to come over because of the milk


regulations. Are we to take it that, because these two islands are now to be specified areas, the winter surplus, if there is a surplus—the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well what the position is as regards surplus—can come to the mainland and be sold in Cornwall, for instance? If so, what provision is he making? What provision for inspection will there be to ensure that the special designations are complied with now that an obligation is to be put on producers and retailers of milk in the islands? Will he set up an office in St. Mary's—I assume he will—or will someone from the mainland have to go over?
There is a host of questions which the hon. Gentleman has not answered. He has dealt with the matter in a most unsatisfactory way. Of course, we all want to see consumers in these two islands lave clean milk. I can understand the hon. Gentleman's desire to hurry the thing alone so that his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will get particularly clean milk. I am sure we all agree with him there. But there is the other side of the coin, which he must not airily dismiss by saying that only one lady might have something to pay out. I do not believe it. In my view, these regulations, of which there are many, will mean quite considerable expense not only for producers but also for the dairymen. The point my hon. Friend made about subsidies is relevant, too, although I do not think that this is quite the moment to deal with it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will seek the leave of the House to speak again and give a brief answer to the questions which I have raised. The position at present, following his answer, remains most unsatisfactory.

Mr. John Mackie: By leave of the House, I shall try to answer most of the slightly irrelevant points which the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) has raised. This Order has nothing to do with the sale of surplus milk, with the price or with anything else like that. When I was there, as the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard) knows. I quizzed the farmers about whether they wished to come under the aegis of the Milk Marketing Board, and they said not. Therefore, if they do not wish to do that, they must get rid of the surplus milk as they have done. It is a

small quantity in the winter anyway, and they get it to the mainland for manufacturing purposes. That answers that point.
As regards the Order in relation to the Act and the designations, I think that I should be almost out of order if I were to go through all the details now. The Order simply specifies the area of St. Mary's and Tresco as coming under the Order which provides for designation. If anyone does not know, perhaps I should explain that the various designations of milk are pasteurized, sterilised, ultra-heat treated—that is the new process—and untreated milk. Untreated milk can also be farm bottled milk. There are the two varieties of untreated milk.
I do not see why people in Tresco or St. Mary's should be treated any differently from people anywhere else in the country. There is an Order laying down certain conditions for the labelling of milk in certain ways and providing for certain conditions in the production and sale of milk to be observed, and it will be their duty to find out what is required and carry out the law of the land. As I have explained, we made perfectly sure that they could. This has not been done in other areas of the country, where people ha: to carry on for themselves, but in this case we made sure that there was, for example, a pasteurising plant established before we made the Order. We undertook a survey. We treated the whole area very liberally indeed in every way.
The hon. Member for Cornwall, North, has made an awful lot out of very little. He is very good at it, and I compliment him on it, but I assure the House that the Order is fully necessary. This is not a debate on our milk and dairies legislation. It is simply a question of whether this area should be specified to give the population clean milk as the rest of the country has.

Mr. G. R. Howard: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand that the hon. Gentleman has spoken.

Mr. Howard: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I moved the Prayer and I have it in mind to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
I wish to say again to the Parliamentary Secretary that, unfortunately, we have heard this sort of thing before. People ask why we should not do the same as everyone else, but, when we have


occasion to ask for assistance as a special area, the answer is very different. This is all I am ventilating this matter for in the House tonight. As a result of the hon. Gentleman's assurances, I shall expect that, if we have additional costs for anything to be done, this aspect of the matter will be taken into consideration. With that in mind, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Arising from what I gathered you were about to say to my hon. Friend, I should like to ask your guidance. A similar situation arose last night when I was the mover of a Prayer, and I was told by the Chair that I had not the right, without the leave of the House, to reply to the answer which the Minister had given. May I have your guidance as to whether the mover of a substantive Motion such as a Prayer has the right to speak again without seeking the leave of the House? I do this purely to have on the record exactly what the position is.

Mr. Speaker: I make no comment on last night. It is a bad practice to go back and consider earlier Rulings. The position is that an hon. Member who moves a Prayer has the right to reply. I intervened just now because I did not know that the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard) had moved the Prayer.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ifor Davies.]

Orders of the Day — POST OFFICE LAND (BUDLEIGH SALTERTON)

6.28 p.m.

Mr. Robert Mathew: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise a matter in my constituency which amounts to a case of grave injustice. One could describe it as a land grab followed by ungenerous and somewhat shabby behaviour by a Government Department, an example of the ever-increasing arrogance of the State and the Executive in its dealings with the ordinary citizen. It is another example of what the late Lord Hewart called the new

despotism riding roughshod over the just interests and rights of the individual, Government Departments and the Executive exercising powers granted to them by this House without proper consideration for the rights of the individual citizen.
My constituent, a Mrs. Clarke, is the executor of the will of the late John W. Palmer and as such is running, and running very efficiently, a small family business in Budleigh Salterton. It is a well-known local business of estate agents, valuers and auctioneers, funeral directors and furnishers, and building contractors. As the House knows, Budleigh Salterton is one of the most attractive resorts, and certainly one of the most attractive towns in all England. It is quite unspoilt, and the local authorities have gone to great pains to keep it as it always has been.
This land was acquired in circumstances which I shall describe shortly. It lies at the back of the family home of the Palmers and Mrs. Clarke and was, in the main, valuable building land. In 1956 the Post Office was looking for a site for a new telephone exchange in Budleigh Salterton, and Mrs. Clarke was approached by a Mr. Gibson, then in the Ministry of Works. Mrs. Clarke was extremely reluctant to sell, partly because the business had already lost some valuable building land which had been converted into a car park. But there were two other main reasons, about which she informed Mr. Gibson. First, the firm badly needed this land for building in connection with its business projects and, secondly, the Post Office at that time required not only the building land site but also a portion of the garden of the Clarke family's house on which there was an excellent brick cottage, in splendid repair, in which an elderly couple were living who had been promised by the late Mr. J. W. Palmer, at the time of his last illness, that they would never be turned out during their lifetime.
That cottage has now been pulled down to make way for the Postmaster-General's telephone exchange. Mrs. Clarke was extremely anxious not to be put into a position of breaking a promise made just before his death by her father to the old couple living in the cottage. Mr. Gibson then tried to find an alternative site. Incidentally, Mrs. Clarke has emphasised to me that throughout the


negotiations on this matter and in correspondence Mr. Gibson was extremely friendly, and very helpful and courteous. He tried to find an alternative site but failed, and then returned to Mrs. Clarke saying that hers was the only suitable site in the whole town.
At this point in the story there is a dispute as to what was said in the negotiations with Mr. Gibson. I will read an extract from a letter which Mrs. Clarke wrote to me in February of this year. She described the abortive negotiations, and said:
Mr. Gibson did try to find other land but returned to me after some time to say that there was nothing else which was suitable for the erection of a telephone exchange. I then asked what would happen if we refused to sell and he told me that the Ministry of Works would acquire it under a compulsory purchase order and the terms would probably not be as good as if we sold without a compulsory purchase order.
Mrs. Clarke has checked with Mr. Gibson about this, and Mr. Gibson says that he remembers discussing the matter with her and that she was most anxious not to sell the land. He even remembers the name of the tenants whom she was anxious not to have to turn out. He says that he made a report of that conversation to the Ministry of Works, which should be on its files. I therefore ask the Parliamentary Secretary what records he has been able to find about this all-important conversation which took place during the negotiations.
I would like to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that Mrs. Clarke is an extremely intelligent and capable business woman. In view of certain suggestions made to me in correspondence with the Post Office I have made it my duty to discover what actually happened, and my conclusion is that Mrs. Clarke's recollection is crystal clear. Nobody would ever suggest that she was anything but a lady of the highest integrity. I can testify that that is so. There is no question that, first, she remembers what happened and, secondly, that her description of what happened is wholly accurate.
In any event, anybody who is negotiating in the circumstances which I have described knows that the State—the Government Department or whatever it may he—holds the ultimate big stick. It is necessarily implied in any such negotiations that a Government Department which is trying to take somebody's

land against his will ultimately cannot lose. The ultimate sanction of a compulsory purchase order is always there, like the Sword of Damocles, and colours everything said and done by both parties in such negotiations. It is implied in the negotiations, and it cannot be seen otherwise.
It is quite clear that in the circumstances of this case Mrs. Clarke would never have sold this land, which belonged to her family business and which was needed for the purposes of that business, if it had not been for the threat of a compulsory purchase order. Whether it was specifically mentioned I do not know, but it was there, and it was quite clear to Mrs. Clarke that if she refused to sell the Department would take action and she would have to yield it up, perhaps at a lower price.
In the event the land was sold by Mrs. Clarke for £2,100. This was the district valuer's price and it was very low for building land. I have looked into this matter and have ascertained the price of land in the area at that time, and I am convinced that the amount she got was low. Today two derelict cottages which were on a portion of the Clarke family's land have been demolished to make way for the building of the telephone exchange.
These cottages having been demolished, the Post Office discovered that it did not need all the land for the exchange. A parcel of land was found to be surplus to its requirements. In those circumstances, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary why this fact was not known at the time of acquisition. There may be some explanation. It may have been due to technical changes. Nevertheless, it is very surprising that, having built the exchange, the Post Office discovered that it had more land than it needed. At what stage was it discovered that there would be surplus land, and what prevented this fact being known at the time when the land was purchased, with the expenditure of the taxpayers' money?
Mrs. Clarke asked for the surplus land to be offered back to her at a fair price. Only today, on the telephone, she again stressed to me that she is ready and willing to pay a fair and reasonable price. I am glad to see that the Postmaster-General is now on the Front Bench, because I want to refer to the fact that he was courteous enough to look into this


matter with some care, although from my point of view he came to the wrong conclusion about it. He answered a number of Questions, and in a letter written on 9th September of this year to me he said, inter alia:
In case there are any doubts in Mrs. Clarke's mind about what constitutes a fair price may I make it clear that if we did sell to the executors they would have to pay the current market value for it?
Naturally, I put this very clearly to Mrs. Clarke, and she wrote to me a few days later, on 20th September, saying—I quote this because it makes the position absolutely clear:
With regard to price, we quite expect to pay the present market price for the remaining land. We feel we should be offered this land before it is offered publicly at a fair price at present day values. I would emphasise again it is not the price of the land which concerns us but the principle of the whole matter.
So Mrs. Clarke has made the position absolutely clear. She has stressed again today that she understands the position and would pay the fair market price.
I understand from various sources that the Devon County Council wishes to build a library on the site. I cannot tell the House what the position about that is, but it seems to me that it is obviously a legitimate desire on the part of the county council, and, in view of the fact that Mrs. Clarke is directing a building firm, it seems to me that some arrangement could be made without putting into the market the land which was originally hers and which was taken from her under duress. The firm would be most willing, I think—we should have to confirm it, but I am almost certain—to build the library.
Mrs. Clarke has been refused the land. She is told that it must be put up for public auction. I would put a third question to the Assistant Postmaster-General. Why has the land to be put up for public auction when a fair market price—at today's values—is offered by the former owners who were deprived of it under the ultimate threat of the powers which the Government have? Is it because it is hoped that the Post Office will make a nice profit, that somebody will pay more than the land is worth and so the Post Office will do extremely well? Does the Post Office want to enter into competitive business by means of an auction? What is the reason.
I wrote to the Postmaster-General first at the end of September, 1964. He has refused throughout to modify his attitude. He has refused to see Mrs. Clarke, who was very disturbed at the interpretation put upon Mr. Gibson's report, that there was no mention of a compulsory purchase order. But there was according to the information which I had. The report, naturally, was accepted by the Postmaster-General. There clearly was some difference of opinion here as to what actually happened. For this reason, I wished the Postmaster-General to see Mrs. Clarke so that he could appreciate that she was a woman with a very crystal-clear recollection, a capable business woman who knew exactly what had happened, although it was some time before.
My view is that the Postmaster-General is hiding behind the Treasury Minute relating to the Crichel Down type of cases, saying that as no compulsory purchase order was used, threatened or even mentioned he has no obligation of any sort, legal or moral, to offer the land back to the original owner. I remember a number of cases on all fours with this when the Conservative Party formed the Government, not affecting the Post Office, it is true, but cases where this sort of situation arose, where there was surplus land. If I remember rightly, it was a matter of policy that the land should be offered back to the original owner at a fair market price. Surely this discretion exists and should be exercised.
After considerable investigation of the case, I am in no doubt that there was an actual implication or mention of a compulsory purchase order. Even if there was not, it must have been implied. After Mrs. Clarke had refused, Mr. Gibson went away and then he came back again and started renegotiating. These were not two free citizens entering into a contract. One was under duress because she knew that ultimately the Government, through the Post Office, would be able to force her to sell. This puts the citizen in a very disadvantageous position.
There is no possible doubt that when, for whatever reason it was—I shall listen to what is said about this—the mistake was made, if it was a mistake, and too much land was acquired with public money for the telephone exchange, surely


the first refusal of the surplus land should have been given to the original owners whose business was damaged, who did not wish to sell their property but had to. Once again, I ask what the reason is for the land being put up for public auction. Why cannot Mrs. Clarke be offered the first refusal of it? It may be that she will not accept the price. Is it because the Postmaster-General wants a bigger profit at a public auction than the figure that the district valuer would probably put on the land?
Something has happened in the last two or three days which throws a certain light on the intentions of the Post Office and, perhaps, the lack of co-ordination between Ministries in this Administration, because the South West Electricity Board has approached Mrs. Clarke apparently not knowing the background at all, saying that it wishes to remove an electricity pole which is in the middle of the land because it is necessary to remove it if the land is to be built on. The board has asked whether Mrs. Clarke would mind if it put certain underground works and stays in the back of her garden to help it. This shows a certain lack of co-ordination between the Ministry of Power and the Post Office.
This is a monstrous case. It is a typical case of the citizen up against the State coming off worse every time. Everybody appreciates that compulsory planning is necessary and that the individual has to give way and concede his property in the interests of the community as a whole. But this is a monstrous case. Mrs. Clarke is morally entitled to be offered the first refusal of the land which the Post Office is about to sell. This is really a case of a Government Department using its powers inflexibly and unjustly, and riding roughshod over citizens and taxpayers of whom the Department is, after all, the servant, which is very often forgotten by officials. I ask the right hon. Gentleman once again to consult his conscience and act in accordance with that in justice and fairness and give Mrs. Clarke and her business the first refusal of the small piece of land which is left.

6.49 p.m.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Joseph Slater): First, I congratulate the Member for Honiton (Mr. Mathew) on

being successful in seeking to raise this matter on the Adjournment. His constituent had had a good advocate to present the case on her behalf.
I begin by repeating what my right hon. Friend said in his letter of 15th March to the hon. Member:
This is a long, involved and not very happy story.
I have listened to the hon. Gentleman's careful exposition and can well understand how it is that Mr. Palmer's executors feel so strongly that the part of the site no longer needed for Post Office purposes should be offered back to them. However, let me repeat very briefly the facts of this case. The hon. Gentleman has endeavoured to give us the facts as he knows them. I shall endeavour to give the facts as they have been given to me.
The Post Office started looking in 1937—not 1950—for a site in Budleigh Salter-ton on which to build a telephone exchange along with a garage and an engineering depot, and began negotiations for a site in Fore Street, held on lease by Mr. Palmer. The negotiations were interrupted by the war and resumed in 1947. They lapsed and were started again in 1950. By this time the need for an engineering depot had disappeared, but we still needed a site for a telephone exchange and garage. In 1950, the Post Office applied for the Fore Street site to be designated for Post Office use under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947.
However, Mr. Palmer objected strongly to our request for designation and by 1953 it became known that the Budleigh Salterton Urban District Council had decided that the Fore Street site would be better used as a car park. This, and Mr. Palmer's objections, led us to agree to withdraw our request for designation.
About this time Mr. Palmer offered us the Station Road site in which, too, he held the leasehold interest. This may have been to attract us away from the Fore Street site to which he probably attached more importance. That he was obliged in the end to hand over the land in Fore Street to the local authority was, indeed, unfortunate from his point of view. But the hon. Member will appreciate that this had nothing to do with the Post Office.
When we found that the site in Station Road was too small for our needs, Mr. Palmer offered to sell us as well a wider strip of land from an adjacent property—"The Lawn"—which he owned. After his death, negotiations continued with his executors until the sale was completed in 1961.
On the Station Road site were three occupied cottages, one brick, the other two derelict. The latter were subject to demolition orders, and the occupants were rehoused by the local authority. The brick cottage—in good condition—was occupied by old servants of Mr. Palmer: these found themselves a rented house when sale to the Post Office was finally agreed.
By 1963, when we had completed our plans for the new telephone exchange on the wider part of the site, we found we could make do with a smaller, more compact type of exchange, and could do without a garage. So the narrower end of the original site became surplus to our needs. I say "narrower" and would like to stress this as it is relevant to the issue now before the House. In this piece of land Mr. Palmer held only a leasehold interest of which just over fifty years were unexpired when the lease was purchased by the Post Office. The Post Office shortly afterwards purchased from another party the freehold reversion in this land. This is the land which my right hon. Friend told the House on 11th May he had decided to put to public auction.
I now turn to the specific points of criticism which have been made, not only by the hon. Member but by persons outside.
The executors have criticised the fact, first, that we bought more land from them than we needed: secondly, that we went and built on the part of the site containing the brick cottage and the strip of land from "The Lawn"—in their contention we should have avoided this end of the site and built on the other. I would remind the hon. Member that ten years elapsed between the time when Mr. Palmer first offered us the site and the time (1963) when we had completed our plans for the new exchange. It is really not to be wondered at that our operational needs should be modified in the course of that period.
I agree it is a pity that we did not know—before we were contractually committed to buy—that we could make do with less than the whole site. But the point I want to bring out is that, even if we had known this in time, we should still have had to buy and build on the northern end of the site—that is the piece with the brick cottage and the strip of garden from "The Lawn"—because only at that end was there sufficient depth to provide the area needed for the telephone exchange and for probable future extensions of it. So, much as I regret it, we just could not avoid having the brick cottage pulled down.
It has been claimed by the executors and the hon. Member has stressed this—that during the negotiations to buy the Station Road site they were told that, if a voluntary sale fell through, the only alternative was a compulsory purchase order. When this was first brought to his attention, my right hon. Friend thought it right to have the closest enquiry made into the matter.
As the House may know, the Ministry of Public Building and Works act as agents for the Post Office in land transactions. The estates officers of the Ministry directly concerned with these negotiations have been questioned. They have confirmed that the executors were reluctant to sell, but they are quite sure that they did not, at any time, imply during the negotiations that the Ministry or, more properly, the Post Office would resort to compulsory purchase if voluntary negotiations broke down.

Mr. Mathew: But this is surely what one would expect an official to say in view of the rules made after Crichel Down. An official has to be very careful indeed in what he says. But I have carried out a thorough investigation. I am convinced that Mrs. Clark's account is accurate, and, as far as it is humanly possible, I have checked it. In these circumstances, it is a little surprising that neither the Postmaster-General nor any high official was willing to see her or to have a confrontation between the persons concerned. Of course any official will protect himself, and one can scarcely blame him in view of what happened over Crichel Down, which is writ large on the souls of these people.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This intervention is suspiciously like a second speech.

Mr. Slater: I do not call in question the hon. Gentleman's belief in the truth as he sees it, but we have carried out our investigation and I hope that he will give credence to my right hon. Friend in carrying it out in order to get at the facts from the Department. The hon. Gentleman should be fair in his criticism because at one time he himself was connected with a Government Department.

Mr. Mathew: We gave good answers.

Mr. Slater: I remind the hon. Gentleman that all this story happened under the previous Administration and not this one. I make it quite clear that we found no other than we expected.
Specific standing instructions in the Ministry of Public Building and Works lay down that no suggestion, however indirect, of compulsory purchase proceedings on behalf of the Post Office may be made—and I want the hon. Gentleman to get this clear—without the authority of the Post Office. Under standing Post Office instructions, no application may be made for the designation of a site under the Town and Country Planning Act and no compulsory purchase order can be made in respect of a site once designated and no hint or threat of any such action can be made to any party—without the express authority of the Postmaster-General in person. Even if I were to accept what the hon. Gentleman has said, my right hon. Friend's predecessor gave the instruction and none of these sanctions was sought or granted.
My right hon. Friend is satisfied that these are the plain facts. It may be—I can only speculate—that the history of the previous negotiations for the Fore Street site, where designation was sought as a means ultimately of obtaining compulsory purchase powers, coloured the executors' attitude when they came to negotiate the sale of the Station Road site. All I can say is that, so far as the Post Office and, indeed, the Ministry as our agents were concerned, this was a negotiation—a protracted and difficult negotiation lasting not one year but some six years—for the voluntary purchase of the land.
I come now to consider the main point—the contention that in all the circumstances my right hon. Friend should sell the surplus land back privately to Mr. Palmer's estate. That is what the hon. Gentleman's case really is.

Mr. Mathew: First offered at a fair market price.

Mr. Slater: This raises the question of Government policy in general on the disposal of surplus Crown land. The over-riding principle is quite simple. It is that surplus Crown land should be sold at current market value. The normal means of establishing current market value is, wherever practicable, to put the land up to public auction, or to sell it by competitive tender. There are very few exceptions to this general rule. One relates to surplus land which was formerly hospital land taken over from a local authority in 1948 without compensation. Another relates to agricultural land acquired compulsorily or under threat of compulsion. The only other exception relates to the sale of land to a local authority where it is deemed that such a sale would contribute towards the solution of a public problem.
I may point out that this last exception to the general rule is not irrelevant here. The Devon County Council, I understand, wants to buy the site for a county branch library and in order to provide access to a proposed health centre on land at the rear. Budleigh Salterton Urban District Council, too, has expressed interest in buying the site for various purposes. So, too, have other people as well as Mr. Palmer's estate. If my right hon. Friend were prepared to authorise a sale other than by competition in the open market, he might well have come to the view that a sale by private treaty to the Devon County Council would be justified in the public interest. However, as he said in the House in answer to the hon. Member's Question on 11th May, my right hon. Friend thinks it right, in the circumstances, to put the land up to public auction.
Finally, let me say that Mr. Palmer's executors have been at pains to point out that their main object in buying back this land is to build on it and not to make a vast profit on it. They would sell it to anyone nominated—including the Devon County Council—provided they


built on it whatever was planned. I would point out that my right hon. Friend's decision to sell by public auction deprives Mr. Palmer's executors neither of the freedom to bid for the land at auction, nor of the freedom to tender for any building contract which may follow the sale.
I sincerely hope that following the debate about this important matter which has caused so much heart searching and about which there has been an investigation to try to get at the facts and now that I have endeavoured to give the full picture as we see it and understand it, the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied with the way in which things have been done.

Orders of the Day — TRAFFIC CONGESTION (LONDON)

Mr. Speaker: Before calling the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke), I ask him, for the sake of the record, whether he has informed the Minister concerned that he intends to raise a matter on the Adjournment.

7.5 p.m.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: Yes, Sir. I informed the Minister at 4 o'clock this afternoon and I also informed the Parliamentary Secretary. I had a message at 6.15 to say that the Parliamentary Secretary was on his way. In the light of what I am about to say, the delay is not unusual. I am very fortunate to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, for a few minutes to draw attention to an extremely topical and important matter—the increasingly serious traffic congestion in London at the present time. The Parliamentary Secretary himself may be held up by the traffic in the short distance between St. Christopher's House and here. Perhaps the Assistant Postmaster-General will tell the Parliamentary Secretary what I have said when he arrives.
In several parts of London traffic has been brought to a complete standstill in the last week. On the anniversary of the coming to power of the Labour Government, London traffic has never been worse than it is now. There is a complete standstill. On Monday evening there was a standstill lasting about an hour in Parliament Square. On Tuesday or Wednesday of this week there was one

in Knightsbridge for about one and a quarter hours.
As a London Member and a London resident I often motor down to my constituency and my experience is that at night time one can get from Westminster to Twickenham, a matter of 12 miles, half of the distance on a motorway, in 20 minutes or a little more. In normal traffic times it takes about half an hour. However, in the last fortnight I have had to allow one and a quarter hours to cover those 12 miles.
This is not exceptional. Constituents have been writing to me and telephoning me this week to say that buses are being delayed by 45 minutes. They say that they are often standing very long on the pavements waiting for London Transport to take them to work. Anyone with any experience of trying to ring up anybody in London before 10 a.m. will know that the telephonist always says that nobody is in the office yet and that everybody has been delayed.
I happened to have a party in the Palace of Westminster on Monday evening to which I asked a number of guests. They were to arrive at 6 o'clock, but most of them were three-quarters of an hour late and they all told me that there was a complete stoppage of traffic down Whitehall and Parliament Square, said to have been caused by an accident at the Elephant and Castle and an accident at Vauxhall Bridge.
The blockage had nothing to do with the Motor Show. That is popularly said that the traffic congestion at this time in October is the result of the Motor Show. As a former director of the Society of Motor Manufacturers which runs the Motor Show, I genuinely believe that the Motor Show has very little effect on London traffic. The reason is that the Earl's Court car park holds only 1,500 cars; there are additional car parks roundabout holding another 500 and there are possibly 500 cars parked in the streets around Earl's Court, most of them quite illegally, of course. There are another 500 cars, or rather fewer, at Olympia for the Dairy Show. There is thus a total of some 3,000 cars in that area. Ninety-nine per cent. of the people going to the show go there by Underground. They go either by District Line to Earls Court or by Piccadilly Line, or by the line to


West Brompton. They do not go by car to Earls Court because they know they cannot find parking spaces. These conditions are brought about by factors other than temporary exhibitions. If 3,000 cars bring London to a halt, then London is not worthy to be a capital city. Our arrangements are not sufficient to take care of that little bit of extra traffic.
London traffic is really local traffic. There is very little through traffic, perhaps about 2 or 3 per cent. Over 95 per cent. of the traffic running round the streets belongs to residents and firms within London. There are 2 million cars in London, 9 million people live here; there are 250,000 cars parked every night in the streets of London. They are the ordinary conditions. Our traffic arrangements should be such as to take care of the ordinary life of the Londoner. I am a resident of London myself and I happen to have a car. I feel that I should be entitled to use it in London and that our arrangements should be sufficient to permit this.
I do not consider that in the last year the Government have done anything to deal with this matter. The Government have been negligent in not progressing with the traffic arrangements brought in by the previous Minister of Transport the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples). What did he do? He introduced clearways on all the main inlets and outlets of London; he introduced parking meters and cut down the number of cars coming into Central London. The Chiswick flyover and the Hammersmith flyover were completed during his term of office, the latter being popularly known at the time as the Marples Ridgeway. He also started the Victoria tube from Victoria to Wood Lane. There were five major traffic steps which he took to get London moving. I have not seen anything in the last year done by the Government to carry on that progressive work.
I have some practical suggestions for dealing with this serious situation, which is discussed in the leading articles of the London papers tonight. I think that we should proceed without delay with the scheme of urban motorways drawn up by the London County Council, the motorway box scheme as it has been

called. The plans were made by the London County Council some years ago and it is only a question of will and cash to go ahead in making these urban motorways through London. We also want a greater number of urban clearways in and out of London. There is one feature of traffic control about which we have been very dilatory and that is the control of traffic by television. It would not cost a lot of money, and some of my hon. Friends have seen, in Munich, television-controlled traffic. The police sit in a box, with television cameras at strategic points around the city of Munich. When a street or crossroad becomes congested, it is seen on the television, and instructions are telephoned to divert traffic in another direction. I cannot see why comprehensive traffic control cannot be introduced at all the strategic points in central London. We have only to cover an area of about five miles in any direction to cover all the black spots.
We must also have alternative routes. It so happens that I know several alternative routes between my own constituency and Westminster. I generally go down the Cromwell Road, but if that is full I can go down the Embankment. If that is full I can go down south of the river, through Wandsworth. As a Londoner I happen to know alternative routes. But in my constituency the other day a busload of schoolchildren came from the comprehensive school at Kidbrooke to Twickenham. The bus driver, who obviously did not know the centre of London, came from the west and went right through Knightsbridge to get to Twickenham. As a result he was about an hour late. That sort of thing should not be allowed, bus-loads should be skirted round the outskirts of London. If Knightsbridge is getting congested then notices ought to go up telling drivers to take alternative routes round to the south or north.
We must keep the railways running. The Richmond-Broad Street line is not being closed. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing), tried to raise the subject of a debate on London traffic during questions on Business today. He has asked me to mention that the London commuter line from Luton and Harpenden running into Moorgate every day is now going


to be stopped at St. Pancras, and commuters for north London and the outer ring of London are to be decanted into St. Pancras to find their way by an already overcrowded underground system. We obviously want more underground railways.
I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary has now arrived. I hope that he did not find the traffic congestion too bad. I am making some constructive suggestions as to how to deal with London traffic congestion. I have already pointed out that it is worse, than it has ever been and that we must have some more underground railways. The Paris underground system is four times more intense than our own. There are four times more lines and more stations in the central part of Paris than there are in the central part of London. We are proud of our underground system here but it is obviously not sufficient, and we want more stations and lines per square mile.
The other day I was in San Francisco, where they have a very serious commuter problem too. They have very large eight-lane freeways, but have found that the motor position is getting so serious that, even in America, where they are not particularly addicted to railways, they are to spend a thousand million dollars on a new automatic electrified rail system. If San Francisco is doing that, how much more ought we to do so in our overcrowded and congested city?
For the benefit of the Parliamentary Secretary I should like to repeat some of the points I have made. London traffic is mainly local traffic. We have to deal with the problem all the time. It is no good getting rid of traffic by diverting it to the outer ring. We want urban motorways and the box scheme as proposed by the L.C.C. for which land has already been reserved. We want more clearways, television control of all the black spots of London traffic, we want the police to give notice of alternative routes to motorists, we want to keep the railways running, we want more underground railways.
I notice in the evening paper tonight that the Director of Highways and Transportation for the G.L.C., Mr. P. F. Stott, has drawn attention to this very serious problem and has made 17 proposals for dealing with London traffic. He says

Even if every one of these ideas is adopted they will, at best, only halt the further deterioration in traffic conditions affecting buses. In fact we shall be doing very well if the buses continue to hold their own.
The Greater London Council's programme should have top priority.
London is still about the greatest capital in the world, certainly just about the largest. London transport has ground to a standstill in the last few weeks and it will grind to a standstill again whenever there is some little difficulty or accident. Congestion is stopping people getting to work. It is delaying the productivity of our office workers and, indeed, of our factory workers. It is stopping the delivery of goods and thus making them more expensive. Unless something is done in London as a matter of urgency by the Minister of Transport in the next year or two, not only will London's traffic grind to a halt, but the lives of 9 million people in this great urban area will be seriously jeopardised and we shall not have done our duty as Members of Parliament to put the matter right.

7.21 p.m.

Mr. Dudley Smith: This debate is as topical as the headlines in this evening's newspapers. We are glad that the Joint Paliamentary Secretary has been able to get here because this is a very useful opportunity to voice the grievance of millions of Londoners.
In the past 14 days there have been 78 major and minor traffic hold-ups in central London. I understand that this is well above average. We know that it is bad at this time of year. The trouble always seems to start with the Motor Show. Although I support almost everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) said, I disagree with what he said about the Motor Show. Why is it held at this time of year, and why does it take place in a very congested part of London? It brings hundreds of extra people into the capital. Although it is good for the export business and internal business, it creates tremendous traffic problems in London.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Perhaps it should be moved to the Crystal Palace.

Mr. Smith: I agree. If only the Board of Trade would hurry up its decision over


the Crystal Palace site, perhaps that could be done.
I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham said about the incidents which have occurred in London this week. There was the tremendous West End jam last night which affected many people. Many hon. Members probably did not notice it because they were in the House, but some of us were affected by the jam throughout central London on Monday evening. I was fortunate to have been invited to the reception of my hon. Friend in the House, and in travelling from Great George Street to New Palace Yard it took me 30 minutes to get across Parliament Square. One could see tempers rising on all sides. It was a beautifully clear night without any rain and there was no apparent cause for the congestion.
One shrinks from the future when one remembers that the Christmas shoppinig rush is just around the corner and that we face a winter of jams in fog, ice and rain. It needs only a sprinkling of rain to add 10 minutes to my 17 mile journey every day. I live in Harrow Weald, 17 miles from the Palace of Westminster. My journey takes me on average about an hour and it is gradually being extended week by week. I am sure that this is the experience of large numbers of other people who have, perforce, to come into the centre of London with their cars.
We want action from the Minister now. We have said this a number of times before. We shall repeat it and go on repeating it until we get action. I suppose that we would all agree that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) was a controversial figure, but I submit that he was probably the best Minister of Transport this country has ever had. It is no wonder that signs have been appearing in some cars in recent months saying, "Come back, Marples. All is forgiven". My right hon. Friend did a tremendous job in speeding up London's traffic, in introducing one-way working and in banning right-hand turns. He always seemed to be on the job and made sure that new ideas were brought into play. As a result, London's traffic speeded up. During his period of office as Minister, great improvements were made. I was able to undertake my journey into the centre of London from the out

skirts far more, effectively than is possible today, because the position has certainly stagnated over the past year. Journeys are taking much longer.
I do not want to attack the Minister in his absence and we appreciate having the Joint Parliamentary Secretary here, but I hope that the Minister will read the report of this debate. He may not be a complacent man, but he certainly gives that impression. I certainly subscribe to the view expressed by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in his magnificent speech at Brighton that the Minister of Transport seems to have done very little during his period of office. The traffic position in London is growing steadily worse the whole time. It has increased in intensity over the past 10 months, whereas it definitely improved while my right hon. Friend was in office.
New measures should be introduced to meet the situations which are arising and which will arise particularly over the next two months. I should like to put forward a personal view of what should be done. I am not an expert, but all of us who use the facilities in London and motor through it have their own experiences. I believe that collectively they can be of use to the Minister. Certainly the patience of the travelling public in London is gradually becoming exhausted. The Minister should study vigorously all the reports being submitted to him, particularly the report made today by the Greater London Council which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham. They are dealt with in the leading articles in tonight's evening newspapers.
The Evening Standard says:
Mr. Fraser, the Minister of Transport, awaits the reports of a study group. The Ministry assures us that it is studying the problem. But London's traffic chaos has been the subject of continuous study for years. It is not an over-night revolution. And it is about time that the Ministry of Transport came up with some concrete suggestions.
The Evening News says:
In the last few days the evening rush-hour has given London a sharp foretaste of the complete traffic paralysis which has been threatening for years and looms nearer every week".
The Minister has only to read his evening newspapers to realise exactly how intense the problem is. I should have thought that he could have brought new


ideas into operation so that we could cope with the Christmas rush in a few weeks' time.
If I were the Minister I would enlist the greater help of the Metropolitan police in getting much tougher with traffic offenders. I do not mean the private motorist who is not parking at a parking meter. There is far too much unloading of heavy vehicles at peak times and too many badly parked heavy vehicles. There have been many halfhearted attempts to get on with road works at inconvenient times which could often be tackled on Sundays and weekends, but which always seem to be embarked upon during the morning rush hour.
Yesterday morning I had the experience of motoring through the "back doubles" to Westminster. I came via Sussex Gardens, near Paddington Station, which is always a bottleneck. There was a large coal lorry unloading by the side of one of the main junctions and causing a tremendous traffic jam which added about 12 minutes to my journey. One can see examples of this on every hand in London today.
I do not think we shall achieve much success by banning private cars from the centre of London. I know that there is a school of thought which believes that this is, perhaps, the panacea. I do not believe that it is. I should have thought that it would be too drastic a step, because some private cars would have still to go into the centre of London and who would decide who should have priority in issuing passes? My solution would be to ban some of the heavy lorries which are cluttering up the roads at rush hours rather than ban private cars. I would attempt to get some of the long-distance lorries away from the centre of London, particularly during the morning rush hour.
I would also smarten up London Transport. This has been one of my phobias for a long time and I shall continue to refer to it while I am a Member. London Transport badly needs a new approach from its management. I know that it is terribly difficult to run scheduled services when traffic is as heavy as it is, but the two stock excuses which London Transport always makes are getting rather thin. It always blames heavy traffic and staff

shortages. Even when the roads are not too congested services are still bad. If we reach the stage of banning private cars, we shall need a much better bus service if life is to continue in the centre of this capital.
Something needs to be done about this. I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, being well aware of the problem, will be able to offer some hope tonight. The London travelling public wants action now. We know that this is a great Government for public relations, but we think that deeds should now start to match the words.

7.30 p.m.

Sir Clive Bossom: For far too long the Government have marked time with a completely negative policy on traffic congestion in London. It is a vast and growing problem, as both previous speakers have said, which has really become ugly and terrifying. Time is no longer on our side, and the Government have got to do something about it. I will say that the Government are at last talking about "bus only" lanes, making more urban clearways, having television-controlled traffic lights, and having more parking meter zones in London in what they call the "glue-pot ring". All these are excellent, all are needed, all I agree with, and all I have advocated in the past. But surely the final answer today is that we must build new roads and new flyovers. The Government may try to persuade the public to use public transport, but it can never compel them to do so. Let us not forget that today we live in a car-owning democracy, because I think that the Government are inclined to lose sight of this fact.
As we have heard, we have in London tonight an exasperated public. I am quite sure that they would back the Government up to the hilt if they made plans and took immediate drastic action, even if it meant spending much more money on new roads. The Government would find that they got a colossal return on their money, because it would reduce congestion. As previous speakers have said, congestion today costs money, time and injury to nerves and health. If one gets into a traffic jam at Christmas time and is in traffic for 20 minutes, halted with all engines going, the fumes will be killers. What we need in London is a crash programme. It may be that that is the wrong


term to use when talking about traffic problems, but we have got to do something drastic at this very moment. We cannot go on talking about it. I have said again and again that time is no longer on our side. For far too long the Government have done everything in bits and pieces. What we need now is a major comprehensive plan put into action as soon as possible. If we do not act soon, it will be too late. We simply cannot afford to continue with our present negative policy, and I am afraid it has been a negative policy for the past year.
It is not impossible to tackle traffic congestion. I well remember a few years ago that in Belgium, when they were staging their great World Fair, they simply carved out the centre of Brussels and built new flyovers and underpasses because they were determined to make traffic flow. It did flow for their World Fair, and it does so today.
Everyone knows how vital the motor car is to our national economy. Everyone knows how vital it is for our motor industry to sell motor cars. At the Motor Show, more and more people are wanting to buy cars and, thank goodness, more and more people are actually doing so this week. Yet the Government are spending all their time and energy in bringing forward measures to stop people using motor cars. I agree that there must be a certain degree of control, but every Londoner and every visitor from outside, including every foreign visitor, wants to see the Government getting down to producing a massive comprehensive plan for road building in London.

7.34 p.m.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: I endorse all that previous speakers have said about the need for major road improvements in the solution of London's traffic problem. I invite the Parliamentary Secretary to consider details of the situation which faces us immediately. I feel particularly indignant about this, having spent half an hour in a taxi cab going from the House to Oxford Street at lunchtime today. A lot of time was spent stationary in Jermyn Street, where parking meters are permited on both sides of a road which is used by a great deal of through traffic, and cars are trying to back into vacant meter spaces and unloading is going on. As a result, what

could be a useful little road to supplement the more important route of Pall Mall is made virtually useless to traffic which wants to make progress because of the clutter on both sides of it. I fail to see why we need to have parking meters in Jermyn Street, particularly since on the way I observed that there were vacant meters at the bottom of Lower Regent Street.
I want to put this point to the Parliamentary Secretary. Is there not a case for the opening up of roads like Jermyn Street, Stafford Street and Hay Hill for greater use by through traffic by removing parking meters which, though widely spaced, act effectively to block the flow of traffic?
I have driven a car in and around London for about 20 years now. There was a time when it was becoming difficult to get about at all. Then, thanks to the improvements made by the two previous Ministers of Transport—and I would not like the work of Harold Watkinson to be forgotten in this context—it became noticeable that one was getting to one's destination very much more quickly, more smoothly and more safely. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said today. We seem to be getting back to a situation which can best be described by using an old Service term, a "snafu", which is probably a familiar expression to you, Mr. Speaker, but which, perhaps, I should translate as meaning "Situation normal: all fouled up". That is what London is becoming.
Hon. Members all enjoy the privilege of using one of the best car parks in the whole Metropolis, but I do not believe that it will serve any purpose to suggest that the only answer to London's traffic problem is to drive out private cars. Many of them belong to people who live here and have the right to expect to use their cars. Many of them belong to people who come into London commuting to business, to shop or to come to the theatre. They have an equal right to expect to bring themselves in by a means of transport which they regard as the most efficient. The test is that if the private car has to be taken out of London, it will only be done with the co-operation of the public and by substituting a more efficient means of transport. I would have gone to Oxford Street by public transport if it had been convenient, but


I should have had to make two changes in the tube and I do not know of any bus that will get me there in half an hour. So I took a cab.
I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary has been recently to the Hyde Park car park and attempted to leave a car there with the intention of continuing his journey by public transport. If he has, he will endorse my own impression that it is practically impossible to get easy access to any other form of transport once one leaves one's car in the cavernous wastes of that subterranean mausoleum. The whole purpose of having a place in which to leave one's car is that one should be able easily to progress somewhere else by some other means of transport. Very few people park their cars in the Hyde Park car park in order to enjoy the beauties of Hyde Park.
I remember going there with the intention of leaving my car and continuing my journey in a southerly direction. I had to fight my way across the north-bound carriageway inside the park, climb over a couple of fences, plod across some flower beds and then cross over the south-bound carriageway in Park Lane. Having done that, I then had to start competing for the attention of London Transport buses. This kind of situation will not encourage people to use a car park of that kind, and I ask the Minister to give serious consideration to the point that access to such car parks, which we are all agreed are necessary, must improve if they are going to be at all useful.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Will my hon. Friend not agree that the Hyde Park car park is very nearly always empty?

Mr. Onslow: I do not know. I do not go there any more. I have more respect for my shoes, because I do not like walking through flower beds.
Similarly, car owners would welcome the establishment of big car parks two or three miles outside the central area where they could leave their cars and where they could be certain of getting some other form of transport in which to proceed to their destinations. We have Christmas car parks established in our royal parks. Can we not have some more permanent arrangement established, with a workmanlike and well staffed taxi

cab rank on the spot, where people who bring their cars into central London can leave them and proceed to their destinations by some other means of transport?
I hope that the Minister will remember that it will be greatly to his advantage to carry the public with him in anything that he does and that possibly the best way of doing this would be to consult the public on their views and not to be too proud to ask for their advice. Many of us who drive cars around London could make one or two suggestions as to how matters could be improved. One body of men who could make many useful suggestions is the body of taxicab drivers. They could suggest how London's transport could be improved. They might, for instance, have something to say about the shambles in the taxicab area at Waterloo station where there is a mad rush of passengers to compete for taxis, where there appears to be no queue and certainly very little order.
This is an urgent problem. We need long-term solutions, and clearly they require money, but I believe that many things could be done to improve the situation at the sticking points in our traffic in London. It would be useful if the Minister took a ride in a taxi now and then instead of relying on other transport.

7.41 p.m.

Mr. David Mitchell: I should like to draw the attention of the House to the Report which has been published by a team under the chairmanship of the Director of Highways of the Greater London Council. It seems to me that the very fact that this Report has been drawn up emphasises the value of the action which the previous Government took in establishing the Greater London Council as an overall authority for this purpose, because it would have been quite hopeless to have sought to plan or to tackle London's transport problems from the smaller area of the old London County Council. We are glad to see this early fruit of one of the useful measures carried into law by the previous Government.
It seems to me that there is much to be gained not only from looking at the problem from the point of view of central London but from placing it within the setting of the south-eastern area and the people who commute into and out of


London. If there were more well-advertised car parks on the fringe of London so that people could drive their cars in from the outlying areas and park in the car parks, and then continue their journey by public transport, there might be an improvement. If these car parks were reasonably priced and well-advertised we might have more people using public transport in the inner areas, providing—and I hope that the Minister will take this point—public transport in central London was improved and was of a high and rising standard.
Will the Minister give an assurance that the tube extensions which have been planned, particularly the Victoria tube, will not be affected by the economy cuts which have been put forward by the Chancellor? One is constantly coming across the most extraordinary ways in which projects are being affected by the economy cuts. I see the Minister shaking his head, and I am glad that he is confirming that this is one of the areas which has escaped the credit squeeze.
The problem of commuters who commute by car instead of by train is growing. My constituency, Basingstoke, is a considerable way out of London, and yet people are commuting from Basingstoke by car because of the appalling train service which is provided. May I give two examples, relevant to the discussion? On 22nd October the business train into London from Basingstoke, a journey which takes about one hour and sometimes rather less, was 50 minutes late arriving at Waterloo, but at Waterloo the passengers received no apology and no explanation from British Railways. At least, that is what I was told by those with whom I talked. On Tuesday it was 40 minutes late. It is not only a question of the exceptional delay of three-quarters of an hour on an hour's run; it is the regular delay, eight minutes, five minutes, ten minutes, fifteen minutes, day after day, with an irregular, erratic service which seems to be getting worse rather than better.
The reason I draw this to the attention of the House is that because of this bad train service a growing number of people are tending to travel together, using each other's cars, to London, adding to the traffic congestion. We must recognise this and deal with the train services into London in order to reduce

the number of people who commute by car. If one travels on the business train from Basingstoke, as I do sometimes, one finds people herded into the train almost like cattle in a cattle truck. If they were cattle in a cattle truck I have no doubt that there would be a prosecution by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, but because they are commuters, adult people, apparently they are not within the scope of that law. But there is no doubt that the appalling conditions on British Railways, particularly in the Southern Region, are adding considerably to the number of people who commute by car and who in so doing are seriously increasing the traffic congestion in London, and particularly in central London.
Will the Minister make some comments about the provision of off-street parking? My impression was that the money derived from parking meters was to be devoted by local authorities to providing off-street parking. Is it being so spent? How much profit have the local authorities made out of their parking meters and how much of it have they spent in providing off-street parking?
This is an important point which ties up with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) about the difficulty of getting from one of these off-street parking sites to anywhere else in London. Moreover, people driving into London, particularly those coming from the provinces, do not know where these off-street parking sites are. They drive from meter to meter around the squares and the streets, adding to the traffic congestion as they search for a vacant meter. Often they cannot find one for half-an-hour or more, and that in itself adds to the congestion. I suggest that on the parking meter should be placed a little sticky strip stating, "Your nearest off-street parking is …" It would cost a few pence per meter, but it would be quite helpful in preventing people from driving aimlessly around searching for vacant meters. Perhaps the Minister would also consider the question of how these people are to get to their destination after they have parked at an off-street parking site.
I notice that the parking spaces allotted to parking meters are of a fairly considerable length—long enough to take a


big car. Is it possible to give some tax advantage to the car owner or some reduction in the parking meter charge in respect of a car which is short enough to be parked in the breadth of a really big car? There is enough space allowed at a parking meter for a Rolls Royce, but one could easily have a motor car designed which was as long as the breadth of a Rolls Royce, and then two such cars could be put in one parking meter bay. That would enable more cars to be parked in the central area. It is a small suggestion but one which, from the tax point of view, might be usefully considered as a means of encouraging the use of cars of a more reasonable length.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: As I was here during the last Parliament, while my hon. Friend was not, he might care to know that the previous Minister of Transport set up a committee to investigate that very suggestion. Would he not agree that we should be told how that committee is progressing with its task?

Mr. Mitchell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information and I am well aware of his experience and expertise in this sphere. I, too, would like to know what has happened to that committee's report. I fear that it has been pigeonholed along with so many other things which reach this Government. What will happen to the report published today from the Director of the Greater London Council for Highways? Will that be pigeonholed? Are we to see any action? During my period in Parliament I have heard Ministers speaking in glowing terms about plans for the future, but those plans have to us seemed vague and woolly. When one considers the practical action that has been taken, very little indeed has been done.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): It might be convenient if I intervened briefly at this point to get this matter straight. It only misleads the House to talk about pigeonholing reports which have not yet been received. A committee called "The Cars for Cities Committee" was set up to go into the subject of the size of cars, parking meters and so on. That committee has not yet reported. There is, therefore, no question of our having pigeonholed its report. It is still carrying on serious

discussions with the motor manufacturers on the problems of design and so on.
I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will appreciate that the details in the London evening newspapers tonight have still to go before the Greater London Council, which is the traffic management authority for London. I hope, therefore, that the House will appreciate that it would not be proper for the Ministry of Transport to declare any views on what are merely the recommendations of a committee of the Greater London Council and which are to be debated next week by that Council—which, under an Act of Parliament, was made the traffic authority for London.

7.53 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: My constituency is a very long way from London, but I am a London ratepayer and I hold a local government vote in two London boroughs—Westminster and Lambeth. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) has raised this subject because it is a topical and useful one for discussion.
We might indeed examine some of the developments which are taking place in other countries because we all agree that the problem is getting worse and that there is no one solution to it. My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham mentioned the television controlling of junctions, a development which has taken place in Munich. We have had some experience of this in a provincial city here, but I would like to know what the Minister thinks of this system.
As is well known, a number of hon. Members have made a study of the problem and, with the help of the Roads Campaign Council, have made regular visits to other European countries to see the developments taking place in them. I recall that on one occasion we were taken to Paris and shown an underground control room in which, by pressing buttons, they could variegate the timing of traffic lights according to the flow of traffic on particular routes. On returning to London after the visit—this was several years ago—I inquired of the Ministry of Transport if we had investigated that system. I was given to understand that the matter would be looked


into, but I never heard the result of such investigation, although I am still not sure that such a system would be feasible in an effort to solve the problem in London.
Sweden has a lot of ideas for solving the traffic congestion problem. For example, there are variegated charges for parking at different places which they have carried much further than we have. To park a car in the centre of Stockholm is extremely expensive. On the perimeter of the city it is extremely cheap, and many of the car parks on the perimeter are served by railways which readily take car parkers into the centre of Stockholm. Indeed, I understand that at the remoter railway terminals parking is either extremely cheap or even free. As I say, combined with this attraction for people to park on the perimeter, adequate public transport is available to bring people to the central area. Would it be possible to emulate that idea?
While we were in Stockholm an amusing point was brought to our attention. Their traffic wardens are women. They deliberately choose women because, they told us, men would not dare be rude to them and the women wardens were much stricter with other women.
I have often wondered whether we have sufficiently investigated the feasibility of adopting other forms of transport, such as the monorail system. Might this not be a means of duplicating certain existing services, either road or rail transport on the same surface space? I have ridden in two different prototypes of monorail on the Continent, the German-Swedish one which runs on top of a rail, which did not impress me all that much, and the Anglo-French vehicle, which impressed me very much indeed particularly since it is extremely silent in operation and accelerates very well and smoothly and is fast. There may be some snags involved which prevent our adopting such a system, but I would like some further information on the subject. I do not know whether the costings have been investigated as a possible means of doubledecking some of our transport services at certain places.
Many suggestions have been put forward. Many of them will have to be adopted if we are to solve the problem in London, which is an exceptional city because of its size and large population. We must also remember the tremendous

area covered by London,. Our problems are different from the difficulties being faced by other countries, but we must consider the solutions which have been found by other countries. Perhaps by a compilation we can make some improvements and so finally solve the extremely difficult situation with which we are faced.

7.58 p.m.

Mr. Charles Curran: We who work and live in London will wish to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) for giving us this opportunity to state our views on a matter on which we all feel deeply. Unlike some previous speakers, I do not rise to tell the Joint-Parliamentary Secretary that I am in possession of the solution to the traffic problem. Like all the best problems, it is much more easily examined than solved.
I recognise that in London we are suffering from traffic thrombosis. This thrombosis is a consequence of affluence. So many millions of people can now afford to buy motors cars. This is to be welcomed. I would much sooner see our streets chockablock with cars than with hunger marchers. I suppose that we could solve the traffic problem in London by having a big increase in the number of people unemployed.
But we must recognise that so long as we have a prosperous society the number of motor cars on our roads will continue to increase and the traffic problem will continue to face us. We cannot escape from that.
I do not believe that: building more roads or providing more parking places will solve the problem. That is not to say that I am not in favour of building more roads—I am—or that we should not provide more parking places; I want more provided. Nor am I not in favour of doing all we can to speed the flow of traffic by all the devices mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham. I am in favour of all of them. But, having said that, we must remember that there is no solution to be found by the multiplication of space for cars. The more we increase the space for cars, the more will cars breed to fill the space available. We must not delude ourselves with the belief that more roads, better roads, wider roads will make traffic easier.
My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham referred to a visit to San Francisco. He will agree, like any of us who have been to California, that every device ever suggested for coping with traffic has been adopted there. The State of California has spent enormous sums of money on building the most magnificent roads, with all those devices. In spite of all this, motor cars have multiplied to fill the extra space, and the traffic jam in the cities of California is just as bad as it is in London. It is just as difficult to walk safely across Pershing Square, in Los Angeles, as it is across Piccadilly Circus in London.
I do not advocate the easy nostrum of spending more on roads, parking spaces and traffic devices in order to say that it will then be possible for everyone to drive a car where he likes and when he likes. We must say very plainly, and it will be very unpopular, that so long as we remain the prosperous society we are, and so long as people are eager to buy cars—and that, apparently, is an appetite that does not diminish but rather increases—we must restrict either the sale of cars or their use. We must make up our minds which it is to be.
It is not practicable to visualise a society in which almost everyone is well enough off to buy a car and, at the same time, to suppose that in such a society we need have virtually no interference with the use of cars. We cannot run our roads in the age of affluence on traffic assumptions dating from the time when cars were the monopoly of a well-off minority. Today, in our universally prosperous land, we must adopt a different approach to traffic.
Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will give us some idea of his Ministry's thinking on this subject. My belief is that as long as London streets are open to cars and lorries without any sort of limitation, congestion is inevitable. The more they multiply, the greater becomes that congestion. Therefore, if we really mean to do anything about it, we must take some steps to reduce the use of cars in London. There are only two ways of doing that; we can restrict the entry of cars into central London either by means of permits or by means of charges. We must choose between favouritism and price mechanism. We must ration either by the

purse or by favouritism—because the issue of permits would involve favouritism, with all the objections that flow from it.
I therefore believe that if we must limit the use of cars in central London, we must ask the Minister what steps he proposes to take. He can cut down the number of parking meters. He can make it less easy than it now is to use the streets as garages. There are various steps that would prevent congestion from reaching the point where London traffic comes to a standstill. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give us some idea tonight what he proposes to do.
Somehow or other some limitation must be put on the use of cars in London. I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham who, in the expansive and generous fashion one would expect from him, has said that everyone is entitled to a car and is entitled to use it if he wishes. I agree that everyone is entitled to a car if he can afford one—and we are reaching the point where almost everybody can afford one. But there must be some sort of restraint on use—rationing by the purse or rationing by favouritism of permits. I hope that we shall hear the Minister's thinking on this matter because, to my mind, that is the root of the problem.

8.7 p.m.

Mr. Peter Doig: Listening to hon. Members opposite, one would imagine that this problem had arisen only since the Labour Government took over a year ago, but this congestion existed just as it is now long before that event. This is not a new problem, and it is with us now because of the failure of the last Government to do anything or solve anything during the previous 13 years—

Mr. Gresham Cooke: I must object to that remark. I do not think that the hon. Member was present when I pointed out six things done by the previous Minister of Transport which greatly facilitated London's transport.

Mr. Doig: I have been in London for longer than the period since Labour came into office—[HON. MEMBERS: "That is not long."] It is quite long enough—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] If hon. Members opposite are prepared to condemn this Government


on what has happened in one year, I have a right to say that I did not notice any improvements during the time of the Conservative Government.
On the Underground at peak hours we find, as we did two years ago, that capacity has been reached. At the busy stations, the trains come in quick succession; no sooner does one pull out than another pulls in. The trains are crammed. Already we find that the trains are the full length of the platforms, so it is impossible to run more trains or add more carriages. At peak hours, saturation has been reached.
What did the last Government do to overcome this? Very belatedly, they decided to have one new section on the London Underground. Years after that should have been started, and towards the end of their period in power, they decided, far too late, to do something.
Let us examine what causes all this congestion. There are far too many jobs in London. What did the last Government do to stop that situation arising? Absolutely nothing. The previous Labour Government left them a system for dealing with this problem, a system of granting industrial development certificates for new development. How did they use that system? They granted about 130 industrial development certificates for the whole of Scotland in a year, but for the London area—the most overcrowded part of the country—they granted no fewer than 725 and for Birmingham, the second most overcrowded part of the country, they granted 400-odd. They made no attempt whatever to use the machinery which had been handed to them for controlling this problem.

Mr. Curran: The hon. Member has given the number of certificates granted. Will he now tell us how many applications were rejected?

Mr. Doig: How many were rejected is immaterial. The important thing is how many were granted and where they were granted. The vast majority were granted for the most overcrowded part of the country, and the second highest figure was for the second most overcrowded part.

Mr. Onslow: Is the hon. Member saying that he would like these industrial development certificates to be refused in

places which he would like to see developed?

Mr. Doig: Because the previous Labour Government did this my constituency does not have mass unemployment today. The City of Dundee benefited from the Distribution of Industry Act, passed by the previous Labour Government. But for that the overcrowding in London would have been worse than it is now. Many firms which went to Dundee would have come to the London area and made overcrowding worse there now. The previous Labour Government did something to deal with this problem and the present Labour Government are doing something now. The present Government stopped new office building in London.
Since the end of the war no less than 80 per cent. of all the new office building in the country has been in the London area. Can one wonder that there is this amount of congestion? Can one wonder when this is allied to misuse of industrial development certificates that we have colossal congestion in the London area? In other parts of the country people need jobs but, instead of providing jobs there, firms have come to add to the congestion in London. So we find London full of Scotsmen and Irishmen. They did not come here because they wanted to do so but because it is the only place in which they could find work. Hon. Members opposite, in Governments of the past, have caused this situation. Let us be clear about where the blame lies.
The previous Labour Government introduced planning Acts. I admit that these also caused traffic congestion because they divided cities and towns into different districts, into residential areas where people lived but had no jobs, and areas where there is work but no homes. Then the people have to travel to find their jobs. By this process people have been caused to become commuters. It used to be usual for the vast majority of workers to walk to work. That has become almost impossible in London today. It is now expected that one should live so far away from one's work that one spends an hour travelling to work in the morning and an hour travelling back home at night.
Over the years it has become obvious that this has been causing the trouble.


Previous Governments ought to have taken steps to rectify the position by incorporating jobs within areas where there is housing and incorporating houses where there are new jobs. That is all that would be required to do away with much of the trouble of traffic congestion, but successive Governments of the party opposite did nothing at all to tackle this problem. What did the previous Government do about Professor Buchanan's Report? Absolutely nothing.

Mr. Onslow: May I ask the hon. Member, as a matter of curiosity, how he would arrange matters so that a major employer in my area, the British Aircraft Corporation, could have its 13,000 employees within walking distance of their work?

Mr. Doig: We have only to look at what happened in the new towns. Cumbernauld is a typical example of a new town where the majority of people can easily walk to work, or travel a very short distance. All that is required is a Government which really means business to do something about the traffic problem. It merely means that we should plan our cities in a different way and use existing planning Acts for future development in a different way so that, instead of providing a housing scheme in one area for 6,000 people and no jobs, we should provide alongside the housing scheme 6,000 jobs. I assure hon. Members that it can be done.
This is something which ought to be examined very thoroughly. I come to the crux of the whole transport problem, not only in London but particularly in London. Successive Governments have raised money from motorists to pay for roads. They have never made any pretence about it—they have never spent the money on the roads. They spend less than a third of the money raised from the Road Fund taxes and petrol taxes on roads, and half of that has to be provided by local authorities. Less than a fifth of the money obtained in the first place especially to provide roads is spent by the Government on roads. Is it surprising when Governments are not prepared to face this problem and to spend the money on the purpose for which they obtained it, but raid the Road Fund and use it for other purposes, that

we have not got the roads which we ought to have? That is why we have not got the transport system we ought to have. That is why this problem is so costly and why we have so many road accidents. The accident problem is very serious, but it does not get the attention it deserves.
We were told that the previous Government had a first-class Transport Minister, but look at some of the things he did. What happened to the Panda crossings? Do the parking meters make more parking space? We are back to the old Tory philosophy of rationing by the purse. If one has a big enough bank account one can park almost where one likes, but if not, one has to go away from the centre of towns to find parking accommodation.
One-way street systems do not get people there any quicker in most cases, because more miles must be covered. A motorist may travel more quickly, but he does not make the whole journey any more quickly and he does not arrive at his destination sooner. One-way street systems are an absolute nightmare to visitors. They are also very dangerous. Traffic flows into Park Lane from all directions. Park Lane starts off with five traffic lanes, but halfway down it narrows. The man who is willing to take the biggest chance carries on, and the others must give way. The first thing that a stranger to London does is to park his car and to leave it parked all the time he is here.
Does this represent what hon. Members think is an excellent job by the previous Minister of Transport? The vast majority of Members of the public do not think so. I would think they are far from satisfied with this Government's record on transport, but they were equally dissatisfied with the previous Government. The previous Government had 13 years. This Government have had one year. It is wrong to give the impression that this Government have caused all the traffic problems which now exist.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Nobody has said so.

Mr. Doig: This has been suggested by practically every speaker since I entered the Chamber.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: No.

Mr. Doig: It is wrong to allow that impression to go out from here, because there is a continuing responsibility on the previous Government. This problem has gone on for a long time. Some day, some Government must wake up and decide to spend much more money on roads, because they are getting the extra money in, anyway. The revenue is rising all the time. Expenditure is rising at a much slower rate. Some day this problem must be faced. The financial mess in which the previous Government left the country may well have delayed the process. This is at least a feasible proposition. However, at some time the Government must get round either to setting aside all the money raised from Road Fund licences and fuel tax, or they must fix a percentage in advance and say that they will keep that money for spending on the roads. In other words, they must get back to the position from which the late Sir Winston Churchill took them away. They must restore the Road Fund and use it for the purpose for which it was started, namely, for providing roads.

8.23 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Howe: It is difficult to follow the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) with any coherence, because most of his remarks rehearsed traditional panaceas and shibboleths about road policy which we ought to be saying goodbye to, and which I suspect the Minister of Transport even in this Government is saying some sort of goodbye to, if any solution is to be found to the problem.
I agree with the notion of placing as much work as possible alongside the homes of the workers as one way of minimising transport difficulties. In my own constituency in Port Sunlight there is perhaps the first prototype of such a venture. I agree that new towns, where everything is organised in that way, go some way towards producing the answer. The Minister of Housing and Local Government said only a week or two ago that he does not propose to start any more new towns in the North-West in the immediate future. As to the existing conurbations of London and big cities in other parts of the country, it is manifestly impossible to transplant bodies of workers to new homes within the existing set-up. We must look beyond that for the solution.
The hon. Member for Dundee, West, suggested that there was a quick and easy solution to the problem in a more complete and rational distribution of industry policy throughout the country. Conservative Governments in the past did their best to implement effective distribution of industry policies. The 1945 Act, under which it was all started, was passed by a Conservative majority Government. By what the Conservatives did for the motor trade—for Scotland, about which the hon. Member for Dundee, West, spoke, for the North-West and for Wales—they encouraged the creation of huge new magnets of industrial growth precisely to stop the continuing expansion in the greater London area. The result is that problems of urban transport are common, not merely to London, about which this debate has been primarily concerned, but to all the great urban centres. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) in his place, because he will agree with me that the urban centre of Merseyside has just as great a potential traffic problem as London.
I want to ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary about the extent to which the present Government are following up the suggestions made by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran) in strategic terms as a way towards, not solving, but at least abating and regulating the problem of urban transport. The suspicion which hon. Members on this side have is that the present Government, Socialist in background, biased towards public ownership and public spending, are unlikely to be sympathetic to the solutions which most experts agree are right for the solution of this problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge began identifying them.
It was plainly right for the previous Government to embark upon the idea of charging for the use of road space by metering parking places. This was an elemental application of the principles of the free market to the use of a public commodity. It is, as the hon. Member for Dundee, West said, precisely rationing by the purse. An important glimmer which we began to see in some Socialists in the last year or two was that they were recognising that in this field rationing by the purse is a means of meeting social priorities as well as economic priorities.


The House will probably remember the essay written by Peter Hall in the quasi-manifesto yast year, "Labour's New Frontiers", in which he enunciated precisely this argument—the way in which it was dawning on him that in the use of road space rationing by the purse was the most effective solution of apportioning priorities and far more acceptable than the favouritism to which my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge referred.
We want to know whether the present Government accept this at least as a strategic way of apportioning the use of urban roads and whether they are prepared to follow through the differential price parking meters which have begun to come into central London, whether they are beginning to follow through the prescriptions on this topic enunciated in the pamphlet recently published by the Institute of Economic Affairs entitled, "Paying for Parking". It is only by using the purse in this sector that we can begin to attract private funds into the provision of off-street car parking facilities on the scale required. Only by a variable price mechanism can the most effective use be made of the parking space available.
As a second illustration of the same topic, the previous Minister of Transport, among the many things that he did, appointed the Smeed Committee to examine the whole question of the metering of road use, not by stationary cars, but by mobile cars. The Smeed Committee reported and suggested various technical solutions to the business of charging for the use of roads in city centres. This was, again, an intelligent application of the free market principle, alien to traditional Socialist beliefs.
What has happened under this Minister of Transport to the recommendations of the Smeed Committee? What developments are we likely to get from that Committee's Report? To what extent are the Government prepared to use the price mechanism to regulate the use of roads by moving vehicles as well as by stationary vehicles?
I come to the much more general proposition of how we are to get roads built more quickly than at present? The hon. Member for Dundee, West, made a characteristically archaic onslaught on Sir Winston Churchill and his raiding

of the Road Fund—a hoary annual. The fact is that all Governments since that time onwards have so often demonstrated that this country does not devise an effective tax system whereby road users are entitled to the benefits of the tax which they pay, any more than alcoholics are entitled to the proceeds of the taxes which they pay. The Road Fund is part of the general body of taxation.
The more important worry is this. The hon. Member for Dundee, West, rightly said that what we would like to see are more roads more quickly. We would like, he said, to see a Government at last having the courage to recognise that all road taxation should go into road construction. That should be set in the context of the National Plan, a much vaunted document which contains a projection of the extension of expenditure on road construction. That projection is all contained within the limitation of a 4¼ per cent. expansion in public spending and therefore roads are in the great queue with schools and doctors and every other form of public social service provision.
Are we any longer likely to get the resources going into road construction if we look solely to publicly financed, tax-raised resources in this way? There are so many claimants on the resources which we are deliberately limiting in order not to socialise more than 41 per cent. of the national income. Is it not time to look into the market mechanism, not only as to the pricing of moving vehicles but for the construction of the roads? If the public are prepared to spend over £1,000 million a year on purchasing and running vehicles would not they be prepared to spend more as customers in tolls for the construction of roads?
We are beginning to make experimental progress towards this. The Forth Bridge, the Severn Bridge and the Tamar Bridge are or will be using the toll principle. We on Merseyside have known the toll principle in the Mersey Tunnel for many years. Surely this is where we can begin to devote to the business of providing roads greater resources by using people's willingness to spend as customers what they are unwilling to spend as taxpayers?
I hope that I have indicated certain ways which I should like to see the


Government adopting to tackle the problem in the long-term in the strategic sense, but I doubt whether a Government committed to Socialism and proceeding against the background of archaic dogmas can show itself willing to recognise the value of customer choice as a means of raising resources to provide the roads. I should like to know whether there are any traces of this dynamic thinking remaining in the Ministry of Transport as a residue of the steps taken by the previous Minister now that the Ministry has been under Socialist domination for twelve months.
I heartily support what all hon. Members on this side of the House have been saying by way of condemnation of the inactivity of the present Minister. The traffic snarls of London are, of course, not the product of the last twelve months, and we know that they are growing, but we are concerned at the inertness displayed from that Ministry, more perhaps than from other sectors of the present Government. Whatever may be said about my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples), he was a Minister of Transport who was out and about, doing and trying, and introducing solutions. Not all of them were right and it is easy enough to pick out one or two and criticise them, but of the present Minister the most that one can say is, "For God's sake say something even if it is only 'Goodbye'."

8.33 p.m.

Sir Richard Thompson: I have listened with great interest to the analysis of this problem by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bebington (Mr. Howe), but perhaps I may be allowed to try to bring the debate closer to the original subject, namely, the situation in London. Anybody who lives in London, as I do most of the time, or has a constituency on the fringe of London, as I have, cannot be in any doubt that the business of getting to and from work is probably the major preoccupation and major grumble of hundreds of thousands of people today.
It is very important that we should be able to send out from the House some sort of message to these people to show that we are not content to let transport in London quietly seize up as transport is doing in other great cities of the world.

I happen to know something about New York. The congestion there is frightful. There one has a feeling of hopelessness, that traffic has become so "fouled up", to use the American phrase, that nothing can be done about it. We must not get into that frame of mind here and I believe that if we play our cards wisely that need not happen.
Over the last few months we have had dramatic reminders of the sort of situation, the perpetual jam which we experience today and which we shall continue to experience if we cannot devise some quick-acting solutions. As some hon. Members have already mentioned, a high-powered report prepared for the Greater London Council has just been published. I do not suppose that anybody here has read the whole of it, but most of us have read the summarised proposals as published in the evening newspapers. Many of these proposals seem to me to be extremely sensible. Many of them are extensions of what is being done now—the tidal flow, the new urban clearways, the extension of parking meters and things of that kind.
The solemn and appalling thought that comes to us about all this is that the compilers of the report themselves do not claim that their proposals will cure the situation. All they say is that they will halt the deterioration. They will not make things very much better. Indeed, with the enormous annual increase in motor traffic, whatever proposals we have we shall be fighting a losing battle.
This to me is the seriousness of the situation. Even if all these proposals were possible to be implemented straight away they would only apply a curb to a worsening situation and would not make it very much better. It must be remembered also that the peak periods of congestion, such as the Christmas shopping period, still lie ahead of us. It is true to say, as most of the newspapers have pointed out, that this problem has been under almost continuous study for years and years and we have not yet found a real solution.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran) said, if we do not do something we shall be approaching a condition of imminent traffic thrombosis. It seems to me that any solution that we can find must be a pretty radical one which is bound of its very nature to upset


a number of people. I do not think that we shall find a solution, for instance, by implementing Professor Buchanan's ideas, well thought out though they are. They would take at least two generations to achieve. They provide a worthy goal always in front of us, but we want a result which will enable us to get to and from work next year. We do not want solutions designed for our grandchildren. We shall seize up completely long before we get to that time.
I do not attach all the weight that some hon. Members attach to the beneficial effect of a really massive road-building programme round the centre of London. We can build roads till we are blue in the face and make it easier for traffic to come to London, but it is what happens when it gets there which really defeats us. This is not to say that I am against improving many of our out-of-date and inadequate roads, but by doing that alone we may do no more than multiply our problems.
My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) and another hon. Member referred to the State of California and the appalling traffic congestion which exists in such modern cities as Los Angeles and San Francisco, with both of which I am familiar. It is not too much to say that the frightful traffic conditions in San Francisco are the direct result of the overbuilding of motorways. The motorways have brought so much traffic into the city, making everybody a motor car commuter, that they are now, in the middle of the twentieth century, having completely to rebuild the whole of their suburban rail transport system. It is being done at immense cost, financed on most original lines, but the lesson is there for us. We must not make the same mistake. We must not imagine that a purely road solution will give us the answers. When a much more modern city like San Francisco realises that it has been doing the wrong thing and must now turn renewed attention to a new public transport system based on the railway—not a conventional railway, and we can talk about that another time—we ought to learn the lesson and realise that just the building of motorways, fly-overs and under-passes, although they have a part to play, will not by itself bring us an acceptable solution.
We want a solution which is reasonably quick acting. Otherwise, we shall find the problem a great deal worse before the remedies can come into full play. Various proposals have been made. One is for a large traffic-free area, that is, free of traffic except public transport, taxis and certain exceptions. I agree that the exceptions would present great difficulty. One would always be in trouble as regards local residents, doctors, people delivering articles and so on who could be excepted from a general prohibition.
I do not consider that the right way to go about securing a large traffic-free area is to say to people that they simply must not drive their cars there. The motor car is a fact of life today. It means a great deal to an increasing number of people every year. The motor car owner is very heavily taxed. To say to him, at the end of the day, "There is a large area in the middle of your capital city where you must never go in your motor car", is, I think, to ask too much. We want to discourage him from cluttering it up, but sheer prohibition is too drastic and the wrong way to go about it.
On that theme, I wonder whether we have been very clever in our parking policy as it relates to parking meters. One of my hon. Friends pointed out, quite rightly, that the more parking spaces one provides the more certain it is that they will all be filled up in time. I often wonder whether or not the cars at parking meters are really cars serving the nearby offices and shops. We know the immense difficulty of supervising this sort of thing. The police and the existing staff of meter attendants and so on are not really capable of checking the many abuses which occur.
Have we got the business of parking control in the very centre of London the wrong way round? If we want to discourage people from driving into London and putting their cars somewhere, blocking the roads, making it impossible for public transport to move, and so on, the thing to do is to make it fairly difficult to park in certain places, with quite stringent penalties if they leave their cars lying about. Of course, it would be wildly unpopular, but it would not be so unpopular as saying to people, "You have motor cars, you pay all the taxes associated with them, but you must not


come into London because there are too many cars there already". If we were really parsimonious with street parking in sensitive areas of London where work is done, people would get fed up with cruising round and round, hoping to be able to dump their cars somewhere and leave them for the whole day. If we applied that policy really rigidly, we could keep out a large number of cars which come in now simply because there is a place to go to.
Alongside this policy will have to go one of improving public transport services. We cannot deprive a man of the effective use of his car if he cannot get a bus or train. But there is no doubt that less congestion would make it easier for the bus services, at any rate, to function smoothly and more regularly.
The other matter which the hon. Member will have to tackle—and I am ready to agree that nobody has yet attempted it—is the staggering of working hours. This is going to be wildly unpopular with anybody upon whom it is enforced, but the present arrangement is quite crazy. Immense numbers of people come into London in the mornings and go out again in the evenings, all travelling in the most acute discomfort, herded together like cattle on trains that are packed and running at intervals of a few yards on our overloaded transport system. If we could make it possible for people to spread their journeys over another couple of hours in the mornings and evenings not only would they travel in much greater comfort but our transport system, which is now overloaded at peak hours and under-used for the rest of the day, could be more rationally put to work.
This has all been said on many occasions. Nobody doubts the theoretical arguments. But everybody shies at the prospect of telling people, "If you will not reorganise your day's work so that some of your staff can come in early and some later we shall have to insist upon your doing so." Everybody fights shy of doing that, but I feel certain that we are coming to the point where that may be the only way of bringing some rationality into our transport system.
It does not seem to me that any measures for alleviating the present problems can be effective unless they take account of the necessity to require people

to stagger their working hours. Offer them incentives to do so, by all means—but that will prove to be part of the solution. It is not really so difficult. Many occupations require those who engage in them to work difficult and odd hours, but they nevertheless manage to attract people. The newspaper industry is an obvious example.
I want to end on a constituency note. In my opinion certain improvements could be made in the present situation. My constituency of South Croydon is a typical commuting constituency, requiring commuters from it to travel for about 12 miles through congested London whether they go by train or by car. I realise that this is a long-term suggestion, but I renew my plea that the new Victoria tube line, which I believe is now likely to be extended to Brixton, should be pushed out further, to Croydon. I realise that everybody wants special facilities for his own constituency, but if the population position and the immense numbers of people coming into London from Croydon is taken into account it will be seen that my suggestion would make a great deal of sense.
Secondly, will the Minister examine the fare structure and try to ensure that rail tickets are more interchangeable as between stations that serve the same area? The hon. Member may be surprised to know that Croydon has 24 railway stations. Some are naturally more heavily used than others, but if there could be a greater interavailability of tickets I am certain that we would not have all the people crowding into those stations which offer the best and fastest services. To encourage that process—and this echoes the plea made by some of my hon. Friends—I ask the Minister to look again very critically at proposals to shut down suburban railways which serve some purpose in transporting commuters into and out of London.
I would not apply the same arguments to little-used lines in the country for which no economic justification now exists, but the little-used suburban lines into London ought to be kept going because we cannot neglect any means of shifting commuters. I would advise the hon. Gentleman, if necessary, to offer substantially cut-rate fares on the lines which are little used perhaps because they are inconvenient or the service is a


little slow. He should offer passengers a financial advantage to use lines which they do not usually use.
In my constituency there is the Woodside-Sanderstead line, which was threatened with closure nearly three years ago. I made a great fuss in this House, and I had the help of my constituents and we managed to avert that closure. We are doing all we can to encourage people to use the line, which is convenient and has the advantage of good car parking facilities at the stations. If the Minister were to offer a special cut rate, I believe that he would suck commuters off the other lines and on to ones of this type, making people realise that there was a way of getting to London which they had perhaps not previously realised. When there is a line which to the Minister's standards is not economically viable, let him use a good private enterprise solution. Let him say, "We will offer a really attractive bargain to the passengers on this line, and when we have got passengers back on to it, perhaps we can let the fares run up again." That is a very good idea indeed.
I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will feel that what I have had to say has had some constructive suggestions built into it. The very long-term solutions about which we hear so much are attractive, but we must do something in the short term if we are to make any difference to the commuter, and foremost among my proposals would be the staggering of working hours.

8.52 p.m.

Mr. Reader Harris: This has been a most constructive and useful debate. At one stage a little element of party politics was imported into it, but I do not think that this is particularly a party political matter. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples), who was the Conservative Minister of Transport, was the best Minister of Transport that we have ever had. The Labour Minister of Transport has come in for some criticism from the Opposition, but I am not sure that I am prepared to join in it as yet. After all, he has been in office only one year, and I do not remember my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey, who was in office

for five or six years, producing very much at the end of 12 months. So I am prepared to give the present Minister a little longer before I pronounce judgment on him. I only hope that he is making some plans and also conducting the vast number of consultations which are necessary before one can start making changes with London traffic.
On the party side, I must say that I am a little surprised that no London Labour Member has spoken in the debate. Although I disagree with the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig), I feel that London Labour Members should be grateful to him for saying a few words about London, even though he is probably a greater expert on traffic in Dundee.
We should keep the question of traffic congestion in London in perspective. It is wrong to give the impression that there is hopeless congestion all day long and all night long. This is not so. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey introduced many changes, notably in regard to one-way streets, which have kept the traffic moving around London. The really bad congestion occurs mostly in the rush hours in the morning and evening, and for the rest of the day we get around perfectly all right. I am driving around London all the time. If one uses one's "loaf" a little and does not always choose main roads but goes by some back ways, it is quite easy to get about.
The main problem is in the rush hours. Such congestion does not occur in August but mostly at this time of the year, however, and it would be wrong for the Government to impose a scheme whereby private cars were banned from London all day long. I support the proposal that private cars should be banned from the bus routes during the rush hours. This is a sensible proposal if it is possible to work it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir R. Thompson) mentioned "staggering". I have noticed that "staggering" by office workers is already beginning to take place. When I go to my Friday night "surgery" in Hounslow, I notice that the traffic is building up from 3.30 p.m. onwards. However, I would make the plea that, where possible, the Minister will consult those concerned to see whether the Dairy Show and the


Motor Show could be held in consecutive weeks instead of in the same week. This would help not only the traffic but also the hotels, restaurants and everyone else.
I know that many conferences and exhibitions are going on all the time. I believe that an Irish exhibition is being held at the Washington Hotel in Curzon Street tonight. But most of them are relatively small and do not attract traffic to the extent of the Dairy Show and the Motor Show, which are the main causes of congestion in this part of October.
If we are to ban private cars even for a time from the main routes, it will be necessary to improve London Transport. I do not want to say anything to make London Transport's life more difficult. I am often in communication with the chairman about the bus service in my constituency and in the end it always comes back to staff shortages.
One appreciates the enormous difficulties that London Transport has in getting suitable staff. The only way to get more staff is to pay higher wages, and if we do that fares will go up. I am greatly in favour of coaxing the public back to public transport, but that means not putting the fares up again. It might even mean reducing them.
I suspect that here I am at loggerheads with the rest of the Conservative Party and that I am perhaps the only Conservative M.P. who believes that the time is coming when the Government, the taxpayer, will have to subsidise London Transport. If we go on putting up the fares people will simply not use the buses or the tubes. One reason why our roads are so congested now is that the minimum fare is 4d. and one can do the same journely much more cheaply in a small car.
If fares continue to go up, people will increasingly desert the buses and tubes and take to cars. One way of easing traffic congestion in London would be to get the minimum fare down to 2d. again, even if it meant a subsidy from the Government, who would in any case save money because this would more than offset the enormous sums lost in the great traffic jams.
I do not expect much support from my hon. Friends on this but I have noted what happens in other capital cities. One does not wish to hold up Moscow as a

fine example but nevertheless the underground trains there are free. We should at least try to make sure that we do not go on putting up fares, otherwise the public will desert buses and tubes even more.
Another method whereby traffic flow could be helped concerns the London roads. Most of them were built many years ago with very wide pavements because of the greater number of pedestrians and the fewer vehicles in those days. In those days there were not so many vehicles on the roads, but there were many people on the pavements. Nowadays, there are more people in cars and fewer people on the pavements.
We therefore have many roads in London where the pavements are too wide and the roadways too narrow. I could take the Minister to 500 roads in London—if he and I had the time—where, if the pavements were made a foot narrower so that the roadway became a couple of feet wider, motorists could drive down the roads much more easily than they can now when cars are parked on each side and there is hardly room for a car to go between. It is no good blaming the people who have parked their cars. Everyone wants to have a car and they cannot all be in use all the time or everything will come to a complete standstill. There are many roads which, if widened by only two or three feet, would make traffic flow much more easily. There are examples in Knightsbridge, Kensington and Chelsea, and I speak only of the areas I know.
There are motorists who, out of the kindness of their hearts and in order to help those who are driving along, park their cars a little on the pavements in order to get them off the roads. This makes the pavement narrower, of course, and if the police come along, such motorists are liable to be prosecuted, for they have committed an offence. That is wrong, because when motorists park their cars a little on the pavement, they do a public service and they should not be prosecuted for it. I recognise that this would need a change in the law and one day something may be done about that. Meanwhile, if the roads could be officially widened and the pavements narrowed, it would be a great help to many people.
My last comment is again on a constituency note. Some of the worst jams


which I have been in in the last month have been not in central London, but on the road which leads to the M.4. I have to go along that to my constituency and on at least two Fridays out of the last four, to say nothing of two days out of the last four, the M.4 has been closed and the resulting traffic jam has begun at Hammersmith. The M.4 has been closed because of an accident and no doubt that is quite right and I do not criticise the police in any way for it.
The trouble is that the signs which close the M.4 begin on the London side of the Chiswick flyover, so that when the M.4 is closed, all the traffic has to be sent down the slip road into the Chiswick roundabout. As I have said, the traffic jam which builds up goes back to Hammersmith. I wonder whether it is possible for the signs closing the M.4 to be a little further along the motorway so that at any rate vehicles can get over the Chiswick flyover and then, if they have to go off, they can get down to the Great West Road further on. This would ease the jams and would help the motorists who are not even going down the A.4, but want to get to the Chertsey Road or to go down to Twickenham and Richmond.
I am prepared to give the present Minister of Transport a little longer, because I do not think that the congestion is his fault. It is part of the affluent society and it will continue. However, if he would do some of the things which I have suggested, he might ease matters temporarily.

9.4 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Bence: I was rather surprised by some of the suggestions of the hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. Reader Harris). He suggested that in order to avoid traffic congestion in London, the community should pay more taxes in order to reduce the personal fares paid by the individual for his rail or road transport. I understood that there was a general campaign to get personal taxation down. We must stop this sort of double-talk, this request in the House for fares to be reduced in all sorts of congested areas and for the difference to be made up by raising taxation, and the talk out

side the House asking people to pay more and more for the things they use personally in order that taxation can be reduced. One gets two sorts of attitudes by hon. Members of the Opposition, one for the House and one for the public outside. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman's speech will be read by the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have no doubt that if he does read it he will be shocked because his idea of reducing personal taxation is crushed by the hon. Gentleman's proposition. I feel sure that the citizens of Glasgow, and the industrial areas of the Midlands and the North will be further shocked if more and more of their taxes are used to enable Londoners to get cheaper fares because of congestion.
Everybody likes to work in a car plant because it provides the best form of occupation of any industry in the world. The industry has set a standard of employment, of social service within the industry that has been aped and followed by other industries in order to get labour in the last 40 years. The motor industry is now probably the leading industry in the world and no doubt people will still go on buying cars. As long as this goes on, the possibility is that the person who owns a car will be able to travel cheaper than the person who has to buy his transport from a municipal enterprise or a private enterprise. When it comes to municipal enterprises, like London Transport, the hon. Gentleman suggests lowering the fares to get people back. This would mean giving London Transport a subsidy.
What about private enterprise? Many of us who live not in London but in Scotland, or in the North or the Midlands, rely partly on municipal transport and partly on private enterprise transport. In the constituency I represent we have two private companies running bus services and they are both having to put up their fares because more and more people in the rural areas are using cars. Will the same apply in these areas? Would the hon. Gentleman agree that since we are to subsidise the Londoner to give him cheaper transport, we should subsidise the Scot in the County of Dunbartonshire or in the City of Dundee or the Borough of Rutherglen? Are these people also to


get a subsidy to enable them to charge cheaper fares?

Mr. Howe: That is a valid argument. Does the hon. Gentleman remember the Jack Committee's Report which proposed subsidisation of this kind and the experiments showing how this kind of problem, about which he is speaking, can be met? Would he not agree that it would be interesting to know from the Minister tonight what steps the Government have in mind, along the lines recommended by the Jack Committee to help rural transport as well as urban transport? Would he not also agree that if we are to raise the resources for giving subsidies of this kind, at the same time fulfilling the valuable pledge given by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod), that we want to use the market mechanism to raise charges from road users along the lines suggested?

Mr. Bence: If it is left to the market mechanism to do it then I am afraid that the fares on the bus services of London Transport would be prohibitive. The hon. Gentleman wants to defy market practice because he wants to introduce a form of subsidy.

Mr. Howe: The point I was trying to make is that the market mechanism can be used to make the motorist in congested areas pay more, while they are congested, for parking and using the road. The proceeds of those payments could quite properly be used to subsidise public commuter transport and public rural transport. We can use the market mechanism to raise resources from the motorist and to keep some of the public service prices down.

Mr. Reader Harris: As the hon. Gentleman has mentioned me several times, may I say that I have no desire that the people of Lanarkshire, Glasgow, or anywhere else should subsidise Londoners. I have not said that. I do not know what the inhabitants of Vladivostok say about having to subsidise the underground in Moscow. Perhaps they feel the same as the hon. Gentleman. I suggest that Londoners should pay for themselves.

Mr. Bence: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman relates his argument to Vladivostok. In this country, one can kick up a row in complete safety about

what is happening in one part of the country when one lives in another part, but it is dangerous to do that in the place which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. There it is a different proposition.
The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the right hon. Member for Enfield, West, who wants to reduce personal taxation, would be satisfied because instead of asking the community as a whole to subsidise cheaper transport to overcome congestion it: London and the danger of uneconomic fares, the whole community would pay increased personal taxation. Many motorists vote Conservative because they think that the Conservative Party does not want to make the motorist pay more. But the hon. Gentleman is a Conservative Member of Parliament, and he wants to make them pay more. Why should the motorist in Dundee who has a Mini pay more in motoring taxation so that the hon. Gentleman living in Croydon has cheaper transport in London?

Mr. Howe: The motorist in Dundee or Dunbartonshire, in areas of low congestion, would pay less in taxation. The motorist in areas of high congestion would pay higher taxes related to his use of the road. The petrol tax would be lower. The motorist who caused the most jams would pay more to subsidise the others. They will hang together.

Mr. Bence: I should think that they will hang together, but what the hon. and learned Gentleman is suggesting is that by registering his car in Dundee my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) will pay lower taxation, but that the fellow who registers his car in London will pay higher taxation. He is suggesting that there should be a differential tax system. If one lived in London and bought a motor car to travel to Whipsnade, or wherever it may be, one would pay higher taxation—a bigger annual licence fee, a bigger driving licence fee, and so on—whereas if one lived in rural areas one would pay lower taxation. This is what the insurance companies are doing. If a person has his car registered in Glasgow, he is charged £30 or £40 a year in insurance. But if it is registered in Dundee, the insurance premium is lower. The hon. and learned Gentleman wants the Government to do what the insurance companies are doing. This is a piece of nonsense.
I do not know what the right hon. Member for Enfield, West will say when it is suggested that there should be a differential taxation of motor cars over different parts of the country. When one buys a car, the thing to do will be to take it to the area where the lowest taxation obtains and get it registered there. We shall have the Secretary of State for Scotland putting before the Cabinet proposals to have a lower motor car taxation rate in Scotland. Then we will shift all the taxation offices from London to Edinburgh and Glasgow and we can register all the cars there.

Mr. Howe: If the hon. Gentleman will read, as I am sure the Minister has read, the Report of the Smeed Committee, he will see that differential road pricing has nothing to do with the area of registration of the vehicle. It involves a sophisticated application of differential pricing according to where one is using one's car. None of the difficulties which the hon. Gentleman so imaginatively foreshadows arises. He must do the argument justice.

Mr. Bence: This is pricing the use of vehicle on the roads. Therefore, this is pricing the roads. So we will have road tolls. Instead of increasing personal taxation, the hon. and learned Gentleman wants all commercial and private users of motor cars in the industrial belt of the United Kingdom to pay road tolls.
It has been suggested that higher road tolls should be paid by people in the South than by those in the North, and what is road pricing if it is not road tolls? People are not such idiots as to believe that there is a difference between a road toll and a road price. It is just like redundancy. Some people think that if a man is redundant, he has not had the sack. The man who is made redundant, on the other hand, believes that he has had the sack. The owner of a commercial vehicle who is asked to pay a road price will still believe that he is paying a road toll. That is treble-talk, never mind about double-talk.
If the right hon. Member for Enfield, West were here he would hear some amazing solutions to the problem of how to increase taxation on the motorists of this country. The motorist is paying too much taxation already. The motor industry is providing just about as much of

our revenue as he should be asked to provide. I believe that motorists should be relieved of some of the heavy taxation they are already paying.
I remember when the Road Fund was appropriated many years ago. When a Government come into power and find that the people who were in power 12 months before have been dipping into the till, paying cash out and putting nothing in, they have to do something to stop the pilfering and get something back again. Eight hundred million pounds had gone, and the only solution was for the present Administration to follow past examples, though not to such a great degree, and put a little more taxation on the motor industry. It is a prosperous and successful industry, producing a highly successful product which serves the community probably as well as that of any other industry in the country. But that is no reason why the general body of taxpayers should be asked to pay higher taxes, or why certain parts of the country should pay higher taxes to clear congestion in the Metropolis. If we want to see congestion cleared from the Metropolis, people in Northern Ireland and Scotland can show how it can be done. The think to do is to transfer some of our administrative offices, industries and businesses to Scotland and to the North-West. That is the way to ease the pressure down here. Let us get more population up there.
Everyone is thinking of all sorts of ingenious schemes to enable 11½ million people to move about the streets a lot faster than they are able to do in the London area. Some people will do anything. It has even been suggested that we should chop the pavements in half. One hon. Gentleman suggested that instead of having pavements eight ft. wide, they should be cut down to six ft., and that that would enable 11½ million people in London to move about more quickly. Why not take the pavements away altogether? People will certainly move faster then, because they will probably be knocked over unless they do. No wonder the party opposite lost the last election, when one thinks of the general public reading the sort of nonsense that has been expounded from the other side. But that is what they are saying: cut


half the pavements away and motor cars will move four and five abreast. Why not take the other half away? Then they will be able to move six abreast and pedestrians will be killed, which is certainly one way of reducing the population of London. Really, I have never heard anything like it in my life.
The answer to the problem, surely, is a long-tem one. The streets of our cities are hopelessly inadequate, because they were never meant to carry the volume of traffic that they have to today. The road system of London was never intended to service 8 million people. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is the answer?"] The answer is a national plan, spread over a period. One only has to read the Buchanan Report. What we have to do is to build new towns to a plan which will accommodate the motor age. We have to build and plan our cities so as to accommodate the motor car, not the horse and cart.

Mr. Onslow: I am sure that the House is most interested in this lecture, but may I implore the hon. Member to come to earth and to give us his views as to how the lot of the unfortunate people using the transport system of London may be improved within the coming months?

Mr. Bence: I came here in 1951, 14 years ago, and that very same question was asked then. Nothing has been done over those 14 years. As hon. Members opposite have said, the congestion in London is getting worse. Indeed, it is getting so bad that they want to put the fares back to 2d. Even that is not enough, for the hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth wants to cut the pavements away.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Will the hon. Member explain why traffic in London was speeded up under the last two Ministers of Transport over two or three years whereas over the past year things have got much worse?

Mr. Bence: It is suggested that in 12 months because of a change in Government we have moved from a progressive relief of congestion in London to a situation which is much worse. That is a piece of nonsense. The situation has been getting worse for years. The traffic congestion is as bad as it was five years ago.

Mr. Onslow: Would the hon. Member favour the House with an estimate of the number of miles he drives a car in London each week?

Mr. Bence: I do not drive a car in London at all. I use municipal transport. I have a car in my garage. I live in Glasgow, but I never use my car for shopping in Glasgow; I go on the bus. Consider what is happening in our modern society. I have known people go shopping in the City of Glasgow and spend three-quarters of an hour looking for somewhere to park their car.

Mr. Reader Harris: What is the bus fare in Glasgow?

Mr. Bence: It depends where you start from. Hon. Members opposite ought to go back to school. There is talk of a Conservative political centre. They need a Conservative education centre. From where I start the bus fare is generally 10d., and it used to be 4d. If everybody in the suburban area where I live used a municipal bus and kept their cars in the garage—if they went to Glasgow by bus and did not jam up the streets with cars each carrying only one person—the municipal bus fare would be not 10d. but perhaps 6d.

Mr. Onslow: On a point of order. Is not the subject of the Motion the congestion in London? This is a serious matter and we should like some attention devoted to it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Samuel Storey): This is an Adjournment debate. We try to keep on the subject raised, but it allows a wide discussion. What the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) is saying is relevant to the discussion.

Mr. Bence: If the Opposition move a Motion for the Adjournment and talk a lot of nonsense, we are entitled to answer it and to expose their nonsense and their double- and treble-talk. This is what I am doing.
As long as an individual uses his car to go four or five miles into the city in order to shop, jamming the streets, and as long as people go to their offices by car in the morning parallel with municipal transport, there will be congestion. We see this in London and in every city in the country—one man driving in his car


to business in the morning, parking the car all day long in the streets. I have a London businessman acquaintance, a man who, generally speaking, outside his motor car is a very nice fellow; but inside that perishing motor car he is a devil incarnate, and he blames everybody except himself. If his car has broken down—and when that happens it is the manufacturer who is to blame every time—or when it is in the garage for servicing he immediately complains to me and writes to the Press about the inadequacy of public transport. Here is a person who uses public transport only when his car is out of action. What a situation!
It must be remembered that if public transport authorities and even private enterprise contractors are to have enough vehicles, capital equipment, available to give every passenger a comfortable seat at all times, particularly during the peak periods, while most of those vehicles are idle for the rest of the day, they will have to be subsidised. Do hon. Gentlemen opposite want to subsidise private enterprise that way and so increase the taxation on what they have described as an already overtaxed community? If that is their view, let them state it clearly in their manifesto and the facts can be brought before the public at the next election.
As long as four and five-seater cars are used to do the shopping, with only one or two people in each vehicle, the problem will get worse in London, Glasgow, Birmingham and elsewhere. It is extraordinary to think that people use their cars for shopping and going to work even in the rush hours. In London this morning I saw a number of buses trying to make their way along Whitehall, all surrounded in the crush of traffic by private motor cars, each having only one occupant.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Were they hon. Members?

Mr. Bence: Of course not. Not many hon. Members use their cars to come to Parliament. After all, our car park would not hold more than a couple of hundred vehicles. Most hon. Members travel by public transport and some even ride bicycles. I have no doubt that some hon. Gentlemen opposite would be quick to suggest that if we had many

more cyclists on our roads they would cause a nuisance, wobbling in the paths of buses and cars.
The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Sir R. Thompson) spoke about suburban railway lines and said that there were 24 stations in Croydon. He made the extraordinary suggestion that to popularise some stations the fares charged at them should be reduced while the fares charged at the stations which one wished to depopularise should be increased. I have never heard anything like it in my life. I have heard of the butcher who makes up a batch of sausages and hangs them up at 2s. per lb. and then, using the same meat, makes up another batch, makes them look a little fancy with some parsley and charges 2s. 6d. per lb. I must liken that butcher's activities to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion for Croydon's railway stations.
I can imagine what people living near the stations which are to be depopularised would think. For the same journey they would have to pay dearer fares. I have never heard such madness. Even the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) would not suggest a thing like that. It makes nonsense of transport.
What we should do is to plan consciously for proper co-ordination between road and rail, and give the motorist who commutes from well outside the city the chance to use his car to get to a point at which he can get an efficient rail service, or even a municipal bus. The car can be kept out of the central areas by the offering of suitable facilities. The raising or lowering of fares has nothing to do with this—it is a question of offering facilities; of making car users conscious of the fact that at a particular point there is a reasonable certainty of a service to take them where they want to go. This has been done in some parts of my constituency by British Railways, where adequate parking space has been provided at a terminal. More and more people take their cars to that rail point, knowing that they can get on the electric train to Glasgow. That is how this problem can be dealt with.
I do not believe in all these weird Heath Robinson ideas of manipulating railway fares, having tolls and the like. That means "priceways"—an American term like the "teach-in". They also have freeways in America. I do not like road


tolls—we have one in Scotland, and the sooner that is ended the better. If this is the sort of thing that hon. Members opposite intend to do if they get back to power, we must get among the motorists and tell them so. Hon. Members having spoken in that way, I hope that appropriate steps may be taken to get the leaders of the Opposition to renounce the idea for good. The motorist is bearing enough already—do not let us make it worse for him. We have already paid for the roads once with the Road Fund. Apparently hon. Members opposite now want to make us pay again. We have had enough of that. Even to satisfy the wish of the right hon. Member for Enfield, West to reduce Income Tax I am not prepared to concede the proposition that those using motor cars should pay again. They have paid enough.

9.3 p.m.

Mr. Peter Bessell: What has been said about road tolls by the hon. Members for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) and the hon. and learned Member for Bebington (Mr. Howe) compels me to intervene briefly in this debate. It is one of the subjects about which there is a great deal of misunderstanding, partly because it is assumed that whenever a road is built and paid for by means of a toll an additional burden is put on the motorist. In actual practice the opposite is true, because in the majority of cases a toll is only applied to a new road when that road is a motorway, a freeway, a parkway, or whichever American term one chooses to use. That road will normally connect one town or one part of the country with another over a very much shorter mileage than the existing road, which was either totally inadequate for a major part of its length, subject to considerable traffic delays, or took a very devious route resulting in a much longer total distance.
It has been shown conclusively in France and Canada that the construction of motorways and the charging of tolls upon them results immediately in a very substantial saving to the motorist in terms of fuel consumed, wear and tear on the vehicle, and speed in getting from one point to another. That aspect should be borne in mind. I am not particularly fond of the idea of toll roads and I wish they could be avoided. Nevertheless, more and more people—I am one of them

—are coming to the conclusion that this may be the only solution to the existing problem of getting motorways and quick communications between various parts of the country as soon as necessary. There is very little option unless we are to increase taxation in one form or another.
If we rob the Exchequer of the money which is received from petrol, the old Road Fund taxes and Purchase Tax on motor vehicles, the Chancellor has to find the money from some other source to maintain his general overall budgetary programme. Consequently, unless we are to increase taxation by one means or another, if we are to have new and faster roads quickly some form of tolls may have to be imposed. This does not mean that the entire cost of a road would have to be met by tolls. It does not mean that the toll should be a continuous charge on a road. I would object to any legislation which would propose such a measure.
In imposing a toll, whether on the Tamar Bridge linking Cornwall to the west of England or on the Severn Bridge in South Wales, we should always seek to remove the toll as soon as the capital cost plus a reasonable rate of interest has been repaid. This should be implicit in any legislation on either bridge or road building. On a toll motorway it would be absolutely imperative that provision should be made that the moment the major part of the cost has been met the toll shall be removed and the maintenance of the road should continue to be the responsibility of the Ministry of Transport without additional charge to motorists.
Another condition which would be important to a toll road would be that there should be an alternative route available. I do not think it right to say to any motorist, "You must use this toll road, or "You must pay in order to go from London to Birmingham on the Ml." We must ensure that there is an alternative which the motorist may use if he wishes. This principle has been adhered to in France. The alternative route there is very little used because the majority of motorists and conveyors of goods by road prefer the fast and normally safer method of the toll road or motorway even though they have to pay an additional charge to use it.
The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Sir R. Thompson) mentioned the danger


of creating a fast network of motorways which would result in people coming into the major centres of population. He gave the example of Los Angeles and San Francisco and he could have added New York. I do not think this is necessarily applicable in the United Kingdom. Certainly the Government's plans or the plans of any political party for developing regions of the country will be only a pipedream unless we provide fast roads to connect remoter areas with the capital city and major centres of industry and the ports of exit.
If we are to relieve congestion in London and if we are to get additional population, additional industry, additional opportunities for employment in Scotland, Mid-Wales and south-west England, and of course in Cornwall, we can do so only when we have road communications which will attract the light industrialists and commercial undertakings to those areas. It may well be that before we are much older this Government, or another Government, may decide that the only means by which the money can be raised short of additional taxation to build the necessary roads will be by imposing some form of road toll on new motorway construction.
I hope and believe that when such legislation is introduced it must be made quite clear that a toll would be applicable only for as long as the capital cost of the road was outstanding or until a major part of that cost had been paid off. There is a great deal of misunderstanding on this subject. A debate on it at a future time would be of great value to hon. Members on both sides.

9.40 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): Everyone will agree that we have had a fascinating and spontaneous debate. I want, first, to apologise to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke), to the House, and to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for being some minutes late in arriving for the debate, as a result of which I missed a part of the hon. Gentleman's speech, but, fortunately, only a tiny fraction of it. It was not until 5.30 that I heard that this debate was certain to come on. I was then in the Palace of Westminster. I had to

travel to St. Christopher House in Southwark Street. Within the hour, at the peak hour of London's traffic, I had to travel back from St. Christopher House in Southwark Street to the Palace of Westminster.
In that way I fully prepared myself in a practical way for the subject of this debate, even though I was not able to undergo very much briefing on so many of the points which have been raised. Therefore, it will be well understood by hon. Members, the notice having been short, that my right hon. Friend and I will have to study the very many and varied points which have been raised, some of which involve major issues of policy, others involving detailed questions of constituency transport problems. As I have said before—I hope I have always fulfilled this promise—I will in correspondence let hon. Members know the answers to points which have been raised.
Before I come to the major issue raised originally by the hon. Member for Twickenham, I want to deal with one or two particular points. One hon. Member—I cannot remember who—seemed to think that we in the Ministry of Transport needed more advice from the public or consultation with people such as taxi drivers. I can assure that hon. Member that he is quite wrong. We have more than enough consultations and a constant and almost overwhelming flow of advice from the public in general, which is often as contradictory as that which we have had from hon. Members during this debate.
The Continental experience has been referred to. I assure the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Geoffrey Wilson) that there is a continuous study in the Ministry of Transport of Continental experience. People constantly travel to see what is going on in the United States, in Sweden and in Italy. We see the reports regularly. There is an interchange of views and news between Governments all the time on these problems.
I sympathise with the constituents of the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell) in their problems of travel to Waterloo. The hon. Gentleman failed to mention that this is mainly due to the scheme of electrification of the line from Waterloo to Bournemouth, works in connection with which are causing hold-ups and difficulties. We have received quite


a number of complaints about it, but this scheme is in the interests of technical modernisation and unfortunately some interference and discomfort are being caused.

Mr. Mitchell: I do not think that what the hon. Gentleman has said is the full explanation. The schedules have been retimed to take account of this, and the evening trains run to time.

Mr. Swingler: I know how difficult this is. I have been experiencing it long enough in travelling from my own constituency in the Midlands to Euston. Rescheduling takes place. I know that all sorts of problems arise in the course of these tremendous schemes of electrification. They cause trains to be very late and discomfort occurs. I am sorry about this. If there are serious complaints, we will investigate them with the Railways Board. I repeat that the scheme is in the interests of modernisation and we want it to go forward as rapidly as possible.
Somebody mentioned the design of cars in relation to parking meters and more sophisticated methods of organising parking in towns. I interjected at that point about the alleged shelving of reports. I do not want anybody to undervalue the Roxbee Cox Committee which was set up some time ago to study proposals about cars. The Committee has met some technical problems and is carrying out detailed conversations with motor manufacturers and others. We hope that this Committee will produce results. I know that frequently in the House there is a horse-laugh about committees, reports, and the shelving of reports and things of that kind, but this Committee is being treated with great seriousness and we earnestly hope that good technical advice will be forthcoming as a result of its deliberations.
The hon. Member for Truro spoke of the use of television. He may know that a very advanced scheme will be coming into operation next year in an area of west London conceived in my Department and now being proceeded with by the Ministry. The scheme is for the control of traffic signals over a wide area by computer. It will include television surveillance such as is now used on one of the London bridges but it is proposed to use it for a whole area for the operation of traffic signals by actual and continuous

observation of traffic. We are therefore bringing into use sophisticated techniques.
Some hon. Members have spoken of a period in which nothing was being done about London traffic problems and congestion. Some things said in the debate might provoke me into considerable partisanship but I am endeavouring to restrain myself because I think that the House would prefer that. I may be provoked further, because we have still plenty of time, but I think that my hon. Friends from Scotland have relieved me of the task of entering into the more general controversy which might otherwise be stirred up.
Hon. Members may say that nothing spectacular has been done, but work on the problem of counteracting congestion and improving the situation for London traffic is something that is going on every hour. There is a continuity about road improvements and the introduction of new schemes. Hon. Members who are ignorant of them are unacquainted with the London situation. Those who are acquainted with it and who travel widely know that it is a source of considerable complaint to the Ministry of Transport that so many changes are going on in one-way systems, in the organisation of roundabouts and diversions and things of that kind arising out of the work of the London Traffic Management Unit which was started by our predecessors at the Ministry of Transport.
Research and investigation has been going on for a considerable time to get the traffic flowing better and, curiously enough, traffic has been flowing better. I know that hon. Members will not believe me, but despite what they have said it is the fact that over the last few years, although there have been these terrible jams and fearful congestion in many places, statistically the rate of traffic flow on account of the work done in traffic management has been better. We have no reason to believe that the situation has deteriorated in the last 12 months.
This work is going on continuously but—and here is an important point which few hon. Members have mentioned—a very important constitutional change has taken place within the last 12 months. This constitutional change, decided upon by the last Parliament, was that the whole


responsibility for the management of traffic in the London area should be handed over on 1st April this year to the Greater London Council. Hon. Members have made representations in the House to my right hon. Friend and to me calling for this, that and the other to be done in London. Perhaps they do not appreciate that the Measure for which many of them voted in the last Parliament handed over total responsibility for traffic management to the Greater London Council.
This is why we read what we do in the London evening papers tonight, and this is why it is not proper for me here now to comment upon the recommendations with regard to future traffic management in London and the more stringent measures of restraint which, undoubtedly, will have to be imposed by the G.L.C. on car users in London. This issue is to be debated by the elected representatives of Greater London next week, I think, and it is a matter for them to decide. This is what the last Parliament determined. It is for the Greater London Council to decide what measures of traffic management should be taken, not for the Minister of Transport. So let no hon. Member opposite at least complain that, rightly or wrongly, on 1st April this year we were constitutionally required to hand over responsibility for traffic management to the Greater London Council and my right hon. Friend has ceased to have power to take measures except when the Greater London Council presses him to do so to enable it to implement recommendations which it wishes to adopt.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: It is true that traffic management is now in the hands of the Greater London Council, but what I said earlier—I think that the Minister was not present—was that we wanted to see some of the great schemes going forward for urban motorways and the like. These matters have not passed from the Government's responsibility.

Mr. Swingler: The hon. Gentleman is quite right there. Highway expenditure and the planning of new road construction is still my right hon. Friend's responsibility, but a great part of this interesting debate this evening has ranged over measures regarding parking and parking spaces, the control of roads, the control

of cars, and so on. These are matters of traffic management in order to try to avoid or counteract congestion, and in the Metropolitan area the traffic management authority now is the Greater London Council.
I shall say a few words now about the general situation. We are mostly familiar with it, but I think that I ought to say a little about our analysis of it. The situation is well known. The problem is in no way a new one. It has been building up over the years during which there has been a 100 per cent. increase in the ownership of cars. In the next ten years, there will be another 100 per cent. increase in the ownership of cars. The number of cars has risen in a short time from 4 million to over 8 million and we think that it will probably rise from over 8 million to 19 million between now and 1980. As some hon. Members have said, this is an indication of a welcome improvement in the standard of living in this country, but it presents a very serious problem.
Eighty per cent. of the people of this country live on 10 per cent. of the land surface, the major urban areas, and this 10 per cent. of the land surface has roughly 20 per cent. of the roads, which in vehicle mileage per annum, carry more than 50 per cent. of the traffic. This is the tremendous urban problem which has been building up. It has built up, to a greater extent in London and to a lesser extent in other places, to a degree which now jeopardises the operations of public transport.
This quotation from the Annual Report of the London Transport Board, with which many hon. Members may be familiar, makes the situation clear:
Between 1954 and 1964, the number of road vehicles entering the Central Area during the morning peak has risen by 29,100 (44 per cent.) but the number of passengers in those vehicles decreased by 35,500 (10 per cent.). The 31,100 additional cars, carrying 42,600 extra people, occupied much more road space than that made vacant by the 1,600 fewer buses. In 1964, private cars carried less than one third of the total road passengers but amounted to more than two thirds of the vehicles, while buses and coaches carried over 60 per cent. of the passengers but represented only about 5 per cent. of the total vehicles.
This is the situation that has caused such increasing difficulties as the infrequency of bus services, the difficulty of recruiting staff for the buses and the irregularity of


the buses—a general worsening in the situation which caused my right hon. Friend to act a few months ago in a way which I shall mention shortly.
In the third place, we all know—this is not a new situation—that the roads programme for the urban areas has not been keeping pace and will not keep pace with the build-up of traffic and the extension of car ownership. Some hon. Members have recognised that in the debate, but others have been reluctant to do so. It is clear to anybody of intelligence examing the resources of the country that this points to the increasing necessity, as the years go by, for measures of traffic management. We cannot cope with the whole of the problem merely by new road construction. An increasing part of the problem will have to be coped with by a more sophisticated management of traffic.
The fourth aspect has been the failure to plan employment opportunities—with the building of office blocks or factories with a consequent creation of more employment opportunities—in relation to transport facilities and the viability of those facilities. There has also been a failure to organise the effective staggering of hours. Instead, we have had over the years a greater concentration of traffic in a smaller and smaller part of the day. This is the essential nature of the problem we face.
What action has been taken? In the first place we inherited a situation in the Metropolis where, in a few months, the responsibility both for conceiving the highway construction programme in London and for the management of traffic in London was to be handed over to the Greater London Council. My right hon. Friend very early on entered into consultations with the new authority and had discussions about the measures necessary both to try to improve the public transport position and to take more stringent measures for traffic management.
Those consultations between my right hon. Friend, the Greater London Council and the London Transport Board have resulted in the responsible committee of the Great London Council putting forward the proposals which are tonight publicised in the London evening Press, which I do not propose to comment upon because

they are a matter for urgent debate and discussion by the Council. It is for the Council to take decisions in these matters. It will be for the Council to raise with my right hon. Friend any measures that require additional powers for the Council, and to implement those things which it believes should be implemented in order to try to reduce the congestion and to get traffic moving in London. But we must leave it to the Council to carry on working out the proposals.

Mr. Dudley Smith: It is all very well for the hon. Member to talk about further consultation and action. Surely he is aware that in the last two days there has been almost a breakdown in the movement of traffic in London, and that with the Christmas traffic coming along there may be a complete breakdown. Surely emergency action and initiative are now needed by the Minister.

Mr. Swingler: The hon. Member is not facing the point. I said at the beginning that the last Parliament decided, in its wisdom and after considerable debate—and with the support of all hon. Members opposite—to hand over to the Greater London Council the responsibility for dealing with traffic congestion in the Metropolis.

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lawson.]

Mr. Swingler: The duties of the former London Traffic Management Unit of the Ministry of Transport passed to the Department of Transportation in the Greater London Council. Now it is for the elected representatives of London in the Greater London Council urgently to consider the situation. It is apparent to me that they have been urgently considering it and have been debating measures. No one can say that there are no radical proposals if they have read what these recommendations are. No one can say that there has not been quick and radical thinking on the problem. Drastic proposals are being put forward and will be debated. There will no doubt be discussions between representatives of the Greater London Council and my right hon. Friend on the implementation of the recommendations


in London. The situation is known to be urgent. I would emphasise that action is going on all the time in regard to traffic management measures in London, but further and more drastic action, which we all agree is called for, will take place.
Secondly, my right hon. Friend has not done nothing about the London Transport Board. In fact, he was criticised by the Select Committee because he so urgently took action in June and intervened to stop the London Transport Board making its usual annual increase in fares. When right hon. Gentlemen opposite were in power it was a regular annual thing—ten times in the last ten years.
My right hon. Friend intervened to stop the fares increase because of the worsening position of the buses and underground trains. The fact is that it is clear, as he said, that the Board is finding it increasingly difficult to meet the two duties imposed on it by Parliament—to provide an adequate service and to pay its way taking one year with another. When he stopped the increase in fares, my right hon. Friend said that in the circumstances the Government had concluded that a thorough examination of the conditions under which the Board operated was necessary, including the possibility of even more extensive traffic management measures and also other measures to restrain the traffic. That was on 23rd June, 1965, since when there has been a stoppage in further fare increases, and shortly my right hon. Friend will be reporting to Parliament about the steps we propose to take to improve public transport in London and make any necessary revision in its financial structure. So action has been taken on that front.
Thirdly, in spite of the criticisms which we naturally expect about the roads programme, it is a fact that that programme is now running at a higher level than ever before, in particular in London. More is being done. Contracts to a higher value have been placed for the widening of highways and the construction of new highways than has ever been the case before, and this is something which will certainly continue. In spite of the fact that the Government found it necessary to defer important projects, I want to make it absolutely plain that more capital

is being invested in urban roads than ever before—in new road construction and the improvement of existing roads.
Fourthly, we have a transportation survey continuously going on in the Metropolitan area, as we have in six other conurbation areas. This covers not merely the responsibilities for traffic management and road construction but also the relationship between rail transport, bus transport and so on.
We, of course, place the highest importance on better utilisation of the rail services, especially in the suburban areas. Indeed, we regard it as of the highest importance in all the conurbations. When certain hon. Members say that nothing has happened in the last 12 months, I recall the agitation about the Richmond-Broad Street line. Certain lines which were previously threatened with closure are continuing, not, I am sorry to say, because they are remunerative but because we and the Railways Board think they are essential as part of the general pattern of transport services for London and certain other areas.
It is impossible to deal in isolation with any of these problems such as the maintenance and improvement of rail communications, getting the buses moving and making bus transport viable and exercising reasonable restraint upon the use of cars in order to prevent traffic jams. That is why we place great importance upon the transportation survey as a whole, for it relates to each other such things as the proposals for the motorway "box"—and we recognise the need for the construction of urban motorways—drastic changes in the pattern of conurbation roads and the whole question of road maintenance, the build-up of vehicles and the position of the buses and rail transport.
In face of these extremely difficult problems no one alone has the panacea. Every conurbation will require a comprehensive transportation plan for the future, relating municipal control of traffic management to counteract congestion to the use and responsibility and financial viability of the different kinds of transport facilities and services available.
It is no use anyone saying that one can solve the problem by one kind of measure. In a great city like London we have to move along continuously with more


and more sophisticated measures of traffic management. It may be that the hon. Member for Bebington (Mr. Howe) is right and that in some cases it would be appropriate to introduce road pricing. It may be in some cases appropriate to use certain forms of parking meters while in other places it may be more appropriate to have disc parking. This is one of the aspects to which hon. Members should pay attention.
Many different schemes are being debated in the country, organised by local authorities as appropriate to their differing circumstances. They are being worked out differently because not all problems in all areas are the same. I hope that hon. Members, when considering this very difficult problem of traffic congestion and the build-up of vehicles on the roads, will not pretend that either this, that or the other measure is the universal panacea and the sole approach we should make to a solution. A great variety of different methods of traffic management will be needed together with a great deal of flexibility in the organisation of rail and road services if we are to deal with this situation. In the last decade we have not evolved the flexible organisation required to cope with the situation. Nor have sufficiently sophisticated measures of traffic management been developed. Let no hon. Member opposite say that

a marvellously splendid situation was bequeathed to us.
We have not managed to solve the problems and we do not pretend that at the moment we have the universal solution. It was very appropriate that the hon. Member for Twickenham should have raised this issue tonight, appropriate not only because of the Dairy Show and the Motor Show—and let me say straight away to the hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. Reader Harris) that we are not dictators in the Ministry of Transport and have no control over the organisation or concurrence of these shows and the consequential results—not only because of the deplorable jams which have occurred and which are increasingly irritating but also because it is clear from the news tonight that the proper authorities charged under the law with dealing with it are thinking about it in radical terms and are making recommendations. When those recommendations come forward to us and proposals are made, hon. Members can rest assured that we shall deal with them as urgently and as speedily as the situation requires.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes past Ten o'clock.